European Year of People with Disabilities

Lord Ashley of Stoke: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy in relation to the European International Year of People with Disabilities.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we propose to use the European Year to raise awareness of disability issues—especially rights and participation—throughout the United Kingdom.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that disability policy in Europe and in some other parts of the world is moving into a wider framework of human rights and full citizenship, focusing less on the limitations of disability and more on the potentiality of disabled people? Will the Government do what they can to accelerate this trend? Does my noble friend agree that the Government's decision to introduce a new disability Bill will be warmly welcomed and will help millions of disabled people and the European Year, providing it is comprehensive and not unduly delayed? Will she tell the House what is in the Bill, and what effects it will have? Disabled people will be furious if there is any undue delay.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend asks five questions, two of them unanswerable and three illegal. I shall have a go at answering those left over. My noble friend's first question was whether the UK Government will give a lead in this European International Year of People with Disabilities. Yes, I hope so. Not only have we had half a million pounds allocated from the European Commission, but the UK Government have added a further £2 million—thus financing more projects involving disabled people than any other European country. Such projects range from the sexual health of young disabled people to a Mencap project that features coaching in writing, performing opera and the like. I am sure that my noble friend is right: we are far and away in the lead in terms of income support for disabled people, civil rights for disabled people and access to work for disabled people compared to any other European country.
	On the second point, yes, I am delighted to confirm that we expect to be able to offer a draft disability Bill for consultation later in the year. However, my noble friend knows perfectly well that I cannot comment at this stage on its content.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall the world-wide International Year of Disabled People in 1981 which was thought to have contributed effectively to the public's understanding and knowledge about disabilities? I remember it particularly because I was appointed UK chairman for that year. It achieved a great deal for disabled people. Will the Government give strong support to this European effort?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I hoped that I had answered the noble Lord's point in my original Answer. Yes, we are delighted with the focus of the European year for disabled people in the UK, which is about rights and responsibilities on our part, but also about rights and participation. So far we are funding some 170 projects across the country, reflecting a range of disability organisations. The dominant idea is that disabled people will be running their own projects for themselves—sometimes with mentoring, sometimes with coaching, sometimes with skilled support. I do not personally recall the events of 1981, but other noble Lords may.

Lord Addington: My Lords, is it not appropriate in this year for disabled people that we should try to project the debate about the civil rights of disabled groups into other civil rights areas? For example, their rights could be on a par with legislation relating to discrimination on grounds of sex and race. One central body and one central thrust surely make sense. Is not this a good opportunity to push the argument a stage further?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord asks a pertinent question. He will know that there is a document out for consultation, under the name of my honourable friend Barbara Roche, from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The consultation period ends, I believe, on 23rd February. Following that, we shall have a better sense of the degree of support for such a single body. Of course, there are wide, good and strong reasons in support of such a single body. Many people may be affected by a variety of civil rights issues. For example, they may simultaneously be a member of an ethnic minority as well as having a disability. At present, these matters are divided up and we do not have comparable legislation across the board. However, it is fair to say that reservations have been expressed by the Disability Rights Commission about a single equality commission. As my noble friend said, it is anxious to protect the very good work done so far by the DRC and to ensure that it is not swamped by a single rights commission. We shall wait for the consultation process to be concluded. In the light of that, Mrs Roche will put forward the Government's position.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am delighted to see my noble friend so well recovered in health and warmly congratulate her and her ministerial colleagues on marking EYDP in the best possible way by winning parliamentary time for a new disability Bill which promises further to enhance the well-being and status of disabled people here and, by example, in many other parts of Europe. Will they, however, do all they can, with other departments and statutory agencies involved, to avert any repetition elsewhere of the tragic closure of the Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocational Centre, leaving many severely disabled young people unable to complete their rehabilitation?
	Is my noble friend aware, in particular, of all-party concern in both Houses about the threat now to the Tyne and Wear centre?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to give me notice that he intended to mention the Tyne and Wear centre. I have checked on the situation. My department has a good and sensible relationship with that rehabilitation centre for people suffering from brain damage. Our position towards the centre, and our funding for it, has not changed. There may be a question about the financial support from other organisations, which we are exploring. I regret that my department cannot extend or increase its funding without taking it away from other forms of disability.
	On the wider point about the rights of disabled people, I welcome his comments, as I am sure does the whole House. There is leftover business from the original DDA, and I am sure that all of your Lordships will work to ensure that the draft Bill and the subsequent legislation pick up those loose ends.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, would it be possible to pop St John's, Smith Square, into the agenda for the international year and get some facilities for the disabled there? The noble Baroness knows that that is something near and dear to both our hearts.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, following the helpful—I was going to say "wise"—pressure exercised by the noble Baroness in your Lordship's House, I had a meeting with the general manager of St John's, Smith Square, and organised discussions with English Heritage. I understand that the possibility of a heritage lottery grant is being explored, so that the beauties of St John's, Smith Square are available to disabled people, not only as audience but as performers. I hope that we see progress on that matter.

King Edward VII Hospital, Midhurst

Lord Walton of Detchant: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have a view about the impending closure of King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst, and whether they will take action to restore or increase National Health Service funding in order to maintain the clinical services which the hospital provides.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, NHS managers are co-operating with the liquidator, who is seeking to find a solution to the hospital's difficulties. Increased funding for NHS work, to be undertaken by the hospital between now and April 2003, will provide some more time for further discussions to take place.
	I should inform the House that I am personally acquainted with Mr Martin Long, the chairman of the board of trustees who ran the hospital until the liquidator was appointed.

Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the hospital, which was originally established with, and is still supported by, charitable funds, has functioned very effectively in partnership with the NHS for over 50 years? It has provided outstanding services in cardiac and orthopaedic surgery and in oncology and radiotherapy. Is it not a facility which the NHS cannot afford to lose and which demands much longer-term support and funding from the NHS, beyond the end of the financial year?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am aware of the history of the hospital and the services that it provides, to both NHS patients and private patients. There is no doubt that if the hospital closed, it would have an impact on the National Health Service, which is why we have made an allocation of £900,000. That will secure more treatment for NHS patients between now and the end of the financial year and time for the liquidator to find a solution.
	Of course, we all hope that the hospital will survive and prosper, but the majority of its income has come from private patients and not the NHS and it has been running a deficit for some time.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister up on what he said about knock-on effects. The three hospitals involved, in Chichester, Portsmouth and Guildford, are all already stretched to capacity. Will he assure the House that the strategic health authority is doing its job and thinking strategically about the demands being made on the NHS in that area, if closure were to take place?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I would expect the strategic health authorities to take a strategic view. I understand that they are developing contingency plans so that, if the hospital were forced into closure, the NHS would have to find provision of services elsewhere for patients who would have been referred to the hospital. That is being factored into their future plans. However, it should be recognised that nearly £1 million has been invested in the hospital very recently to give the liquidator time to find a long-term solution.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this the hospital where pioneering work in hip replacement was carried out after the early operations performed by the late Sir John Charnley some 30 or more years ago? Those operations restored mobility and relieved much pain and are now regarded as routine.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to pay tribute to the history of the hospital and the contribution that it has made over many years. I am well aware of its local popularity. Equally, however, the NHS is not there, per se, to fund private hospitals. Funding must be given on the basis that the hospital is providing a good service to NHS patients. Decisions must be made locally, but I hope that the injection of additional funds during the next few weeks will give the liquidator time to find a way through.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at six o'clock last Wednesday there was not one vacant bed in St Thomas' hospital? I read in the press last Thursday that 1,000 patients might go to Belgium to be treated next year. Is not the issue of a lack of beds extremely serious, and should not something be done quickly?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, bed capacity is an important issue. The noble Baroness will be aware that in the past two years the number of general and acute beds in the NHS has increased for the first time in many years. We are committed to increasing overall NHS capacity.
	As for the issue of patients being sent abroad, the NHS has piloted schemes to enable NHS patients to travel abroad when that is appropriate. We are committed to providing more choice for patients generally. However, the key issue is raising capacity, and we are doing that by employing more staff and opening more facilities.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the Minister has not slammed the door today and to that extent his answers are welcome. However, does he realise that Ministers who reject the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on such a subject risk finding themselves seriously in error? I would not wish that to happen to the noble Lord.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I try to find myself on the same side as the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I agree that that usually pays off. The noble Lord is right. I cannot say more. I cannot commit the NHS to long-term funding. It is not appropriate for me to do so. We have put in extra money from central funds. I very much hope that, with this support, the liquidator will find a way through. I am afraid that I cannot say any more than that and I cannot give any more commitment than that.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as an illustration of the high standard of clinical services provided by King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst, is the Minister aware—I doubt that he is—that my godmother was a patient there with tuberculosis 50 years ago? I recently celebrated her 99th birthday by giving her lunch in this House.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that she recovered from the lunch.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree, without feeling too vulnerable, that we need every good hospital that we have got? As my noble friend has so ferociously said, the King Edward VII hospital at Midhurst is brilliant and we ought to do everything that we can to keep it going.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I fully accept that that is a popular view of the hospital. I reiterate that these are matters for local NHS bodies to decide. We have set the conditions under which there is a little time for further discussions to take place. Let us hope that there will be a successful conclusion, but I cannot guarantee it.

Investors: Leave to Enter UK

Lord Hooson: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many persons in the past five years have been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom as investors under the Immigration Rules; and what checks they make on the source of the £1 million which has to be under the applicant's control in order to meet the requirements for leave to enter with his or her dependants.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, specific information on how many investors have been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom in the past five years is not kept. All applications for entry clearance as an investor are referred to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's business case unit for a decision. As part of their consideration, the bank statements and source of funds are checked. Further security inquiries may be made as necessary.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that statement. Is it not correct that the rules enable anybody who is ostensibly rich to enter this country and have a right of abode here provided they have at least £1 million and undertake to invest £750,000, and provided they can satisfy the authorities that neither they nor their dependants will depend on jobs in this country or on the resources of this country? Presumably they are then allowed in. The rules require that such a person must intend,
	"to make the United Kingdom his main home".
	Are adequate checks made not only on the character of the applicant, but on the source of the money? If somebody from Russia has money in the bank as a result of activities there and that money is then transferred for investment in the United Kingdom, are any checks made on the initial source of the money?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a number of questions, following one or two assertions. Broadly speaking, he has correctly described the situation. To put it on the record, after going through the process, people are granted entry for a period not exceeding 12 months. That needs to be understood. They are granted further leave to enter for maximum periods of up to three years, provided they meet the rules. Indefinite leave to remain may be granted on completion of four years' continuous leave. So there are further considerations.
	Checks are made with banks, together with other security checks, to ensure, as far as possible, that funds obtained by criminal activity are not used. The vast majority of investor applications result in entry clearance being granted. I can advise your Lordships' House that there have been no recent refusals.

Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, did I understand the noble Lord to say that all applications are referred to a single government department? If that is the case, why on earth does that government department not have a record of them?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thought it was important to ask officials that when I was briefed on this Question. I raised with them the need to keep a careful check on numbers. I would not want to leave the impression that we are not being rigorous, because rigorous checks are carried out. NCIS is used in the exercise and we are careful to ensure that people who come here promising investment deliver it.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, following up on my noble friend's question, which was to the point, will the Minister assure the House that rigorous checks will be made in future? He has said that occasionally there may be security checks. Will he assure the House that there will be security checks for these people and that we will have records of who they are and what happens to them so that we do not have this appalling situation in future?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the situation is carefully monitored. I do not want any impression to be created that that is not the case. The policy was introduced by a Conservative government. The noble Baroness is party to that. We have inherited it. Security checks on details of people's banking and bona fides are made. These rules have long been in place. Of course I am happy to go back to the department and say that a better check should be kept on numbers.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I fully appreciate my noble friend the Minister's response on the use of money that is invested by those who come into this country. We do not want it used for criminal activity. However, a greater concern is that these people who seek asylum with this amount of money have made that money as a result of criminal activities in prostitution or drug provision before they invest it. Is that monitored to the same extent?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the category of individuals we are talking about are not asylum seekers.

Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when the Abacha family looted the Treasury of Nigeria and the Nigerian government complained to our authorities, our rules and regulations were found to be slow and wanting in checking up on the dumping of money in London as a result of criminal activity? The Government at that stage promised action to tighten up our regulations. Has such tightening up occurred?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is wide of the original Question. Of course we have put in place measures and legislation, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, to ensure that we play our part in preventing international corruption.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I did not hear the noble Lord answering the question asked by my noble friend Lord Renfrew. Does he find it much too difficult?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, my Lords. I tried to advise the House about a scheme that was devised some 20 years ago for people who wished to come to the United Kingdom as investors for which there is a helpful explanatory leaflet. Large numbers of people do not use the scheme. This Government have ensured that we have more than adequate checks in place to make sure that there is no corruption of that process.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, when the Minister asked his officials why they had not kept a check on the numbers, what did they tell him?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, they told me that the numbers are not large.

National Service Framework for Children

Baroness Massey of Darwen: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the progress on the National Service Framework for Children and what are its likely implications.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the first standard of the national service framework, covering children in hospital, will be published very shortly. The full NSF will follow by the end of 2003. It will be a 10-year strategy for improving the delivery of health and social services for children, young people and maternity services.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that interesting and encouraging reply. What consultation took place in developing the framework, in particular were children, young people and disabled people consulted?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there has been widespread consultation. External working groups composed of people from the services and from the voluntary sector are involved in developing policy. A series of events have been conducted with professionals and with young people and children. I am keen to encourage my department to engage more with young people in the development of policies in the future.

Lord Chan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that because the National Service Framework for Children will arrive so long after the five others on coronary heart disease, cancer, diabetes, mental health and older people, some NHS managers do not accord it the priority that they ought to, particularly for this year and even for next? If that is the case, what does the Minister advise the Department of Health to do to correct that serious misunderstanding, particularly in the light of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into Victoria Climbie?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety to see the national service framework brought into being as soon as possible and for dispositions to be made accordingly at local level. However, one has to consider the issue of capacity within the National Health Service to deal with each national service framework. There is a 10-year programme leading to considerable change. We have to time it right. For that reason we cannot produce all the NSFs in one go. The publication of the children in hospital report soon, and of the NSF at the end of the year, will set the framework in which we shall expect the health service and local government to make decisions in terms of both resources and service delivery.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, will the national service framework make clear at what age a person is determined to be a child? Will it cover issues of transition to adulthood? Will the Government follow the advice of the Wanless report that NSFs cannot be effective unless there are resources to support their implementation?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot answer those questions as, in doing so, I would anticipate the work that is taking place at the moment. It is important to remember that much work has to be undertaken between now and the end of the year. We have delivered a five-year programme of very large expenditure and expansion in the NHS. We have also allocated to local government a large increase in expenditure over the next three years. I am confident that those authorities will be able to embrace the NSF. We should remember also that NSFs are not simply about new measures costing more money but are often about how to use existing resources more effectively.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, the Minister mentioned overload in the National Health Service. What other national service frameworks are in the pipeline? Does the Minister accept that for each new one there is a new priority accepted by the health service although not necessarily given to it, and that overload is a very real problem?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give a programme for future NSFs because decisions have still to be made about that. We have produced a number of NSFs so far, including those for mental health, coronary heart disease, cancer, older people and diabetes. We are also working in the area of long-term conditions at the moment. I accept that there is a risk that if you produce too many too quickly the service will not be able to respond. However, on most occasions that I discuss these matters in this House noble Lords urge me to adopt many more national service frameworks because they wish the particular service in which they are interested to be given a push as regards better service. We must get the balance right. I believe that we have the balance right in terms of the number of such frameworks that we have so far, but we shall have to watch the position carefully.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, how will the framework enhance partnerships between professionals and working together between departments, bearing in mind the outcome of the Climbie inquiry?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the national service framework will address both the health service and local government. We shall address partnership issues. I believe that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the tragic events surrounding Victoria Climbie will act very much as a catalyst for improving cross-collaboration between different agencies, but will also make it clear at whose door accountability ultimately lies.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that primary care trusts always seem to favour allocating the budget to those parts of the health service that are already covered by the national service frameworks? That is why people—noble Lords voiced this concern last week—are so concerned that sexually transmitted diseases are not included in such a framework. I refer also to concern about progress on the National Service Framework for Children. Those two matters are closely linked in terms of giving birth and the transmission of diseases. Can anything be done to persuade primary care trusts to allocate funding to aspects of medical treatment other than those covered by the frameworks?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, here we see the dilemma of maintaining a balance between ensuring that national policy is implemented and giving enough discretion at local level to primary care trusts and others to make local decisions. As regards sexually transmitted diseases and sexual health services generally, we are anxious that primary care trusts invest the correct sums of money in that regard. We are looking at the whole performance indicator and performance management framework to see whether we should embrace indicators to reflect that. But at the end of the day it is better to have a programme that introduces NSFs gradually and allows them to be incorporated within the financial and planning frameworks. Such a programme enables the health service to absorb more NSFs when it has dealt with those it has been given. It is difficult to get the balance right but I believe that we have done so.

Earl Howe: My Lords, how will the Government's announcement of a Green Paper on children's issues affect the timetable and the content of the National Service Framework for Children?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not expect it to affect the timetable that I have already announced in terms of the publication of the full NSF by the end of this year. The Green Paper addresses children at risk. We expect to publish it in the spring. We expect it to be consistent with the national service framework, but the national service framework embraces a much wider category of children and young people.

Sir William Stubbs

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what basis Sir William Stubbs was paid £95,000.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Department for Education and Skills has, without accepting liability, agreed to pay Sir William the sum of £95,000 representing a payment in respect of his lost earnings and his legal costs.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if Sir William Stubbs was rightly dismissed, as is still claimed by the right honourable Estelle Morris, why should the taxpayer be asked to give him a £95,000 payoff? If he was wrongly dismissed, why did he not receive an apology, and who was in fact to blame for the A-level fiasco that led to his publicly humiliating dismissal in the first place?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have made it clear that the department does not accept liability. In his letter to Sir William, my right honourable friend wrote that he understood that the events of the autumn caused Sir William and his family considerable public humiliation and great distress. He also said in the letter that the circumstances that led to Sir William's departure were regrettable for all concerned, and caused hurt to all parties. In settling on the amount, Sir William has said that he is pleased that matters have been amicably resolved.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, as the Minister implies, there has been an attempt to put the lid on this particular episode from the summer. Before the Government put the lid on it, will she assure us that they have learned the lessons from the fiasco and that they are setting up a QCA that is genuinely independent from the meddling and micro-management that the Government like so much?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Baroness said about meddling and micro-management, but I accept that there are lessons to be learned. We are acting on the recommendations made by Mike Tomlinson. For example, the QCA has produced simple and clear descriptions for AS and A-level standards. Exemplar materials are available, and key changes have been made to the code of practice. Of course, we have made £6 million available as well to help to deliver the 2003 exams securely, and to make sure that we have sufficient examiners.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am surely not the only one in the House who finds the noble Baroness's answers as clear as mud. If the Government accept no liability in the matter, how on earth can they justify paying £95,000 to this gentleman? Surely the very fact that the money has been paid is an admission by the Government that wrong was done to him.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I hope that I have made the matter clear. I apologise if the noble Lord thinks that I am being as clear as mud; perhaps it is a compliment, but I am not entirely sure. The settlement was jointly agreed between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Sir William Stubbs. Both are satisfied with its terms. I have made it clear where the £95,000 figure comes from, in that it is a combination of loss of earnings and legal costs. We believe that it is a satisfactory resolution to the matter.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister clear up for all of us why Sir William was dismissed in the first place?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have discussed the details of the matter in this House before. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State believed that the action was appropriate to take at the time. Subsequent to that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Sir William have reached an agreement, and I am delighted that they have done so.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister answer a simple question? What was the alternative to the agreement?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, Sir William had lodged a legal action, as the noble Lord will know. The settlement has been agreed. As I have said, both parties are very satisfied with it, and I believe that it draws the line under the matter. I recommend that noble Lords look at the letter that my right honourable friend sent to Sir William.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, has the Minister shared with the House all the lessons that the department learned from the affair?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have certainly tried to ensure that we share them when we have made statements on Mr Tomlinson's reports. As the process goes on this year, I will endeavour to do so whenever noble Lords ask me to.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is still time. Contrary to what the Minister said, she has never shared with the House the reasons why Sir William Stubbs was dismissed.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have tried to make them clear and to answer questions as clearly as possible on behalf of the department. We should be pleased that we have reached an amicable settlement. Again, I ask noble Lords to look at the letter sent by my right honourable friend to Sir William, to accept that Sir William is very satisfied with the results of the settlement, and that we can move on.

Ministerial and other Salaries (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Goodhart.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to repeal the provision for by-elections of hereditary Peers under the House of Lords Act 1999. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Weatherill.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

North Atlantic Council

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend Mr Adam Ingram. The Statement is as follows:
	"The North Atlantic Council has been examining the technical procedure of tasking the NATO military authorities to undertake and carry out contingency planning to deter or defend against a possible threat to Turkey. Yesterday, the silence procedure was broken by three allies, who sought further information on the timing of such a tasking. There is no debate regarding the need for the alliance to provide assistance to a NATO member if so requested.
	"Also yesterday, Turkey requested consultations under article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The North Atlantic Council meeting scheduled for this morning has been adjourned until 16.30 Brussels time for further consideration of the proposal. It is too early to speculate on the outcome of these ongoing deliberations".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very brief Statement on what is a very serious situation. I am also pleased that, under our Statement procedure, noble Lords will have a little more time than was perhaps indicated by the brevity of the Statement to discuss such important events. That is particularly appropriate given that, at this moment, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is making a major statement of policy—it is a pity that he does so outside Parliament—on all these issues. Therefore it is valuable that we in this House should have a chance to speak on them as well before the crisis meetings of next week are upon us.
	Does the Minister accept that we regard the situation that has emerged as deeply regrettable? It is all the more so given that, by demonstrating divisions among the international community as it does, it will encourage Saddam Hussein to, in the American phrase, play games and thus increase and not reduce the chances of war, which we all abhor and indeed dread. In our view, the Foreign Secretary is right to say outside Parliament as he now does that 1,000 extra inspectors would not help, and that the key question in all of this, including the question of Turkey, is whether Saddam will co-operate in disarmament. Nor does it help to try to prevent Turkey, which is next door to Iraq, taking proper precautionary and defensive measures, as that too will only encourage the Iraqi dictator to more excesses.
	Does the Minister agree that behind the dangerous disagreement that has developed there are two much deeper political factors at work? First, the people of Europe—obviously the French and Germans and also, if opinion polls are correct and are to be believed, many people in this country as well—have not yet been convinced of the case for an early attack on Iraq. Secondly, we face the persistent tendency of our French neighbours—it is a great nation—along with Germany not merely to follow their own European agenda, but to depict and construct Europe as a rival to and not a partner of the United States.
	On the first of those matters, those of us who happen strongly to believe that Iraq is a clear, direct and present danger to us all have been much impressed by the Prime Minister's resolution and energy. We have said so again and again. However, we have been much less impressed by his powers of public persuasion, least of all by the original dossier on Iraq, which omitted all mention of terrorism and 9/11. That was a cardinal error. We were even less impressed by the pathetic plagiarised dossier of 5th February.
	On the second issue, does the Minister agree that although France and Germany—our neighbours—must be respected, neither they nor even less Russia must be allowed to dominate the European or NATO agenda, or wilfully tarnish trans-Atlantic relations? Does the Minister agree that NATO and the EU have survived earlier crises? This is not a time for absurd cries of panic.
	The United Kingdom will be most respected as a good and a forward-looking European nation if, at the proposed EU summit next Monday, it neither caves in to delaying tactics on Iraq, which are clearly in the minds of many of our neighbours, nor hurls invective at its French and German neighbours. Instead we should remind them firmly, as I believe we should have done much earlier, and as Colin Powell did in detail before the Security Council, that Iraq, international terrorism and an unstable Middle East are all deeply interwoven; that Iraq has long been a lead contractor in the consortium of global terrorism; and that while other issues in the region demand attention—for example, the Palestine tragedy—the way to deal with them effectively will not be clear until this malign man is disarmed. Next Monday at the EU meeting we should remind our neighbours that a new UN resolution to achieve that aim is much the best path to peace and world stability and is deeply in the interests of all democracies.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for making that short Statement. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in asking the Minister when noble Lords can expect a debate on this matter in the House. The two Opposition parties and the Cross-Benchers have pressed for such a debate.
	Can the Minister say when the request was made by Turkey for Patriot missiles? Was there a specific request by Turkey for the missiles or just for the planning of the movement of them? That appears to be at the heart of the argument. An assumption that Patriot missiles are to be sent to Turkey presumes that there is an almost unstoppable momentum towards war. In many Statements the Minister has said that it is hoped that war will not take place. However, there appears to be no great urgency for the movement of the missiles, especially as Hans Blix's report will be brought before the Security Council on Friday.
	Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government believe that there is merit in the Franco-German proposals for an increase in the number of inspectors? Surely the aim of the military build-up is to force Saddam Hussein to disarm and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction. As we saw during the Gulf War, the inspectors were far more successful in removing the potential threat to us all. Over 80 per cent of the weapons of mass destruction were removed through the work of inspectors and a very small proportion was removed by military action. It is unfortunate that Britain finds itself in opposition to its EU allies rather than acting as a bridge between our EU allies and the Americans.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I was answering a question in the same way my right honourable friend Mr Ingram was answering a question from Bernard Jenkin in another place. That is why the Statement was short.
	I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. We believe that it is important to keep what has happened so far at the North Atlantic Council in context. It may help if I remind noble Lords of the sequence of events. It is not the first time that this has occurred in NATO and I dare say it will not be the last.
	First, the United States and other nations issued a proposal for NATO prudent planning, defensive in character, and which does not imply any automatic NATO action. Secondly, the Secretary-General, our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, issued a proposal under the silence provisions. Thirdly, that silence was broken on Monday by France and Belgium, supported by Germany.
	They were entitled to break that silence if that is what they saw fit to do. We are disappointed that they did so. I make no bones about that at all. We believe that the proposal put forward by the Secretary-General was sensible. That silence having been broken, the North Atlantic Council meeting was adjourned. It was reconvened yesterday but there was no consensus; it agreed to meet again today at 11 o'clock but that was postponed until 11.30; and that meeting was immediately adjourned without comment and will reconvene at 16.30 Brussels time, which, if I am not mistaken, is in precisely five minutes' time.
	I thought that it was worth setting out the process for the House to put the matter into context. Yesterday the Turkish representative raised article 4, as he was entitled to do. That states that NATO's members will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any NATO country is threatened.
	What our three allies did does not constitute a veto. They did what they were entitled to do, although the Government are disappointed that they broke silence in that way. The lack of consensus appears to be over timing and not substance. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked what it is like to fall out with our allies. I point out that 16 of the 19 members of NATO have not fallen out with us; they agree with us. Three members of NATO have fallen out with us. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, meant to say that he supported what his spokesman in another place said a few minutes ago, that his party regretted, as we do, that they had done so.
	We believe that a further delay in reaching agreement—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on this point—will send the wrong message to the alliance on alliance unity and particularly to Iraq. We agree with him that this is a serious matter, but it is no more and no less than a serious matter. In this House we must not rush to judgment when it may be sensible to sit back coolly and see what happens later today.
	On the suggestion which is not accepted by the French, German and Russian Governments in relation to more inspectors, I can do no better than to quote what Dr Blix said:
	"The principal problem is not the number of inspectors but rather the act of co-operation of the Iraqi side".
	Mr El Baradei, in his turn, said that what was needed was a drastic change of mind. It is not for the weapons inspectors to discover weapons of mass destruction; it is for Saddam Hussein to disclose them. This is not a game of adult hide and seek; under the terms of Resolution 1441 Iraq must comply actively, immediately, fully and unconditionally. It has failed to do so. Therefore it is in material breach.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, as someone who shares what appears to be the majority European opinion that the case for an immediate attack against Iraq has not yet been made, I suggest that if the American intention at Munich was to persuade their allies of the case, they signally failed to do so. I have some sympathy with the German foreign minister who said that he found it difficult to present the case for war when he had not been persuaded of it himself. Was it wise of the Americans to send Mr Rumsfeld to Munich? I have been reading Bush at War, by Bob Woodward, which makes it absolutely clear that in the Afghan context Mr Rumsfeld saw no need to present any case whatever to America's allies. I suspect that he takes the same view on Iraq. I join others in deeply deploring any damage done to NATO by the events of the past week.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is always heard with great interest in this House on these matters because he is undoubtedly an expert on them. I was not in Munich myself this weekend, although I know many people who were. I understand that the American Secretary for Defense presented the case for the United States and the coalition that it is hoped will be formed in a measured and proper tone, as I am quite sure he did.
	I have no doubt that criticisms can be made generally of politicians from whichever country in regard to this very difficult matter, but I think that it would be unfair to say that any particular individual had made matters better or worse. The fact is that there is one individual who really counts in this matter in the opinion of the British Government, and that is Saddam Hussein. It is really up to him. He can prevent war if he wants to. What he must do is to disarm.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I wish to return to the content of the Statement about the NATO situation. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that this is not the first crisis that NATO has encountered and it will obviously not be the last one either. Should we not take a leaf out of a certain insurance company's advert and try if we can not to make too much of a drama out of what is a crisis?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as usual I agree exactly with what my noble friend has said.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I speak as one who is also not yet convinced of the case for military action and who shares the great sense of unease at the public disagreements that have surfaced within NATO. Does the Minister agree that the deployment of defensive missiles in Turkey is a sensible precaution and is a necessary step to take if the threat of the use of force is to be credible? It is the credibility of the threat of the use of force that is most likely to bring about that drastic change of mind of which he speaks.
	Can the Minister clarify the position about the deployment of those missiles? Will the United States provide them in any case, even if there is no agreement within NATO? Has Germany indicated also that it might provide them with Dutch personnel to man them if there is no agreement? There seems to be great confusion. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as to the last point made by the right reverend Prelate, I am not in a position to speculate about what will happen if NATO does not reach the consensus required under the treaty. I very much hope—and I am sure the House agrees—that it will reach such a consensus. I think it would be foolish for me to speculate about what could happen next. I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's comments, in particular because he is not convinced yet of the case.
	As to the right reverend Prelate's point about Patriot missiles in Turkey, they are part of the credible force that is clearly required at the very least—I think we can agree on this—if Saddam Hussein is to move at all. Does anyone think for a moment that inspectors would be in Iraq or that we would be where we are if it had not been for the credible force that might be employed against him? I think the clear answer is, no.
	As regards the case made, we continue to hope that Iraq will co-operate fully and disarm peacefully in line with the demands of the international community. I remind the House that that international community includes NATO. It was not just the United Nations Security Council that voted 15:nil for resolution 1441, not long afterwards at Prague all NATO members—every one of them—agreed that 1441 was an appropriate resolution. It gave Saddam a final opportunity to comply. He has not complied yet I fear to say and time—I also fear to say—is running out.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, can the Minister answer the question from my noble friend Lord Redesdale about Turkey? Can he tell the House when Turkey asked for assistance? Did it make any request for Patriot missiles before Monday? In addition, I note that the Russian parliament will debate the question of Iraq tomorrow. Might the House authorities agree to our having a similar debate, so that we can have the same rights as those of our newly democratic neighbours?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness as to the exact chronology of what Turkey asked for and when it asked. I have given the chronology as regards events in Brussels this week.
	We have debated Iraq on a number of occasions in this House, as has the House of Commons. I understand and appreciate the feeling that there should be another debate shortly. I also know that the Chief Whip knows that too, and these matters will be sorted out, as always, through the usual channels. I do not think we need to take any lessons about free debate from the Russian parliament.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I understand the Minister referring to the need to avoid exaggerated language at the present time. One hopes that the present controversy can be resolved, albeit it was only seven minutes ago or whenever we started discussing it. None the less, we are in a very serious situation.
	Everyone in the House agrees that unless there is the absolute credibility of force to support the UN resolution, there is no prospect whatever of this matter being resolved by inspectors or by the programme set out by the UN. Every instance of indecision and disagreement among United Nation members, who were agreed, merely reinforces the conviction in Baghdad that perhaps after all the United Nations—as has been the case for the past 11 or 12 years—will fail once again to rise to the challenge and that it will be able to get away with it.

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not disagree with a single word that he has said.

Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as the leader of the British delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I agree with the Minister that NATO has had crises in the past and we have always overcome them quite well.
	Does the Minister appreciate the concerns many of us have in this case? We understand that the application by the Turkish authorities for missiles was under Article 4—and, of course, that has been negated—which was a precursor and indeed perhaps a preventive measure for an application under Article 5. Article 5 would require all the other 18 member states of NATO to go to the assistance of Turkey if it were threatened. Can the Minister assure us that nothing would be allowed to stop Article 5 being invoked if it were necessary?

Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right; the Turks have invoked Article 4. That matter is currently being considered in Brussels. As regards speculation about the future, I am reluctant to go very much further, but I must say that it would be remarkable if and when Article 5 came into play there was not unanimity among all NATO members.

Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites (Northern Ireland) Order 2003

Lord Williams of Mostyn: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, This is the first illustration that we have had of the procedure to deal with Northern Ireland legislative matters. We had a full discussion of these matters yesterday in the Moses Room. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

Lord Smith of Clifton: rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert "but this House regrets the omission of representatives from both the business and community sectors on the proposed strategic investment board who would ensure that the board would be a model of social partnership and would reflect the need to involve key stakeholders as called for in the report of the PPP working group review of opportunities for public private partnerships in Northern Ireland".

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in proposing the amendment standing in my name, it should be emphasised at the outset that it is in no sense a wrecking amendment. Indeed, its aim is to strengthen the order. As I said yesterday in Grand Committee, the proposed strategic investment board will have a wide and as yet unspecified remit. It will be appointed by and solely responsible to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Again, its composition is not specified in the order.
	After the Grand Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal kindly wrote to me fleshing out in more detail what the Government have in mind. The letter states:
	"The precise composition of the SIB is still under consideration. A small expert board is the most efficient option . . . The Board will bring a strategic and highly innovative approach to managing and financing the infrastructure programme right across all Depts. It will deal with the new source of borrowing, and also make the best use of private finance through Public Private Partnerships to meet local needs".
	It continues:
	"The early PPP pathfinder projects have demonstrated the need for ensuring effective management procedures for the procurement process".
	You can say that again. The record of the PPPs is chequered. Some procurements appear to have been in the public interest and give good value for money; but many more have been proven not to have been. Government capacity, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the UK, is still too poor to guarantee the best procurement of PPP projects. The cleverest experts, of course, are those of the tenderers for such projects. They are past masters at ripping off the public purse. That is why the amendment draws attention to the need to have local community and business representation on the board of the SIB to keep a common-sense eye on proceedings. The board needs some non-executive directors with that perspective. Experts need close scrutiny in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere—as the De Lorean episode illustrated vividly and is still remembered in Northern Ireland.
	The Government intend to have an advisory council alongside the SIB to bring in wider business, trade union and community viewpoints. Such advisory bodies are all very well and, successfully run, they can be useful, but they are not a substitute for places on the board of the SIB. That is not just my personal view. The earlier PPP working party in Northern Ireland forcefully suggested that business and voluntary groups should be involved in strategic policy making. The SIB is, above all, concerned with strategic policy planning.
	Northern Ireland is a small place where the bush telegraph is as quick as any piece of information technology. Operational decisions made by "a small expert board" will be rapidly transmitted to the outside world and when, weeks later, they are reviewed by an advisory board the seeds of disgruntlement may well have been sown; and, in any case, it will be too late to influence decisions. Have an advisory board by all means, but make things smoother by having direct local business and voluntary sector acumen available to the board during its deliberations and crucial decision making. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion at end to insert "but this House regrets the omission of representatives from both the business and community sectors on the proposed strategic investment board who would ensure that the board would be a model of social partnership and would reflect the need to involve key stakeholders as called for in the report of the PPP working group review of opportunities for public private partnerships in Northern Ireland".—(Lord Smith of Clifton.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, ring some bells. However, in principle I do not agree with him. The situation has arisen because of internecine political battling within the parties at Stormont. It has been suggested that the Bill (as it then was) would not have passed through Stormont had it stayed there. I have done a little research—one does not have to count a lot of numbers—and there is considerable doubt on that. The likelihood is that it would have passed. But, what is more important is that it is a very good Bill, it should pass, and is in the right hands—that is, in the office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is what the argument is about. Should it be there or in another department controlled by some other party? That is my first point.
	Secondly—I am sorry if we have debated this previously but we have an amendment before us which we have to debate—the board is a very worthwhile asset for Northern Ireland. It gives considerable potential if managed and developed well by professional people. The strategic investment board has not yet been set up. It has not yet been selected. From where I sit, there is no reason to believe that those responsible for selecting and appointing the board will not propose a sound group of people well capable of making a success of it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, mentioned matters such as De Lorean—from 100 years ago. I think of Laganside Development Corporation which changed for the good the face of Belfast. Of course, it took some knocks on some projects because of dissatisfied parties and so on. But overall, anyone who visits Belfast now and knew it 20 or 25 years ago would hardly believe that he is in the same city. The citizens of Belfast and outside enjoy that.
	Let us take the issue a stage further. I refer to the Belfast harbour board. It was set up a little before the time of my great grandfather. Its remit was to develop and work the port of Belfast in the interests of the citizens of Belfast. I believe that those developments—the redevelopment of the port, the selling off of the property portfolio and the developments on Queen's Island where Harland and Wolff has, sadly, been steadily running down—are another exceptional example of developing the property assets of part of Northern Ireland. It has been achieved by a tough business board appointed by government and others.
	My anxiety—I have mentioned it to the Lord Privy Seal outside the Chamber—is that there may be a dilution of authority. I should hate to think that separate little boards would be set up to develop bits handed to the north, the east and the west. That would be a serious waste. It would not be a successful route. To set up a strong strategic investment board is the right answer. If for political correctness it is necessary also to have an advisory commission, so be it. I support the order and do not support the amendment.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I have not suggested in any way that there would be mini boards set up all over the place. He tilts at the windmills of his own imagination.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I am fully behind the order; and I support the amendment. I agree with the reference of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to the model of the Laganside Development Corporation. The Laganside board has, and must have, a proportion of representatives from the community. That has worked well. So the noble Lord's argument works against itself. However, when we were setting up the partnership boards in 1994–95, there had to be representation from business and different parts of the community. I sat on a Northern Ireland partnership board for five years and know how difficult it was to get that mix of people at the beginning. It worked well. We now have LSP boards, area partnership boards—in fact, boards coming out of our ears. You can rarely meet anyone in Northern Ireland who is not on some board. So the expertise is there.
	We are discussing the bases that the Army had for years. Most of them are in local communities, not down in the docks like Laganside, which is a beautiful tribute to Belfast. Local communities had to put up with all the business that went with those bases for many years. I do not want to circumvent the system. I hope that the strategic investment body will include that knowledge, but if local communities were included, that would give people confidence and a feeling of pride in their area. Giving the local community a say could put to bed many future disagreements.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made. If the House wishes to have my advice, I advise it to vote for the order and to endorse the approach so clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.
	The membership of the company's board will be controlled by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister—both of them democratically elected. Accounts will be subject to scrutiny by independent audit. The affairs of the company will be subject to audit for value for money under Article 9 of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order.
	I shall quote a little more fully from the letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Smith. I observed:
	"A small expert board is the most efficient option and the Government will be proceeding on that basis".
	For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, I am sure that that is right. I continued:
	"Current thinking suggests that the board should consist of one public sector representative, the interim chief executive and the chair of Partnerships UK"—
	who have been acting as consultants—
	"plus a small number of other experts in the relevant fields".
	I then turned to the advisory council, of which I notified all those who attended the Grand Committee on Northern Ireland Orders after our discussion. The letter states:
	"I emphasise that Government is committed to a social partnership approach in this important area of policy development. I want to ensure that the social partners, including the representatives of trade unions, business and the voluntary and community sectors will continue to make an effective contribution".
	I hope that that answers the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood.
	"I hope, therefore, to announce soon the details of proposals for the establishment of an advisory council representing a range of local interests"—
	precisely the point raised by the noble Baroness—
	"to discuss and advise on the SIB and its work, with specific reference to Public Private Partnerships, which will include representation from the social partners".
	All that the noble Lord, Lord Smith, wants is contained in those assurances. The right way forward for the board is for it to be constituted as I described. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for his support. I must tell your Lordships that the amendment is no more than aspirational—which is sufficient condemnation.

Lord Smith of Clifton: Aspirational, my Lords, describes the right sort of motive. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, said, that is common practice in Northern Ireland. The opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, was wide of the mark about what I suggested. It was in his imagination. The noble and learned Lord said that the board would be audited and subject to this, that and the other condition. I expect all that to happen.
	The Government would save themselves a lot of trouble if they included two or three community representatives from business, the trade unions and the voluntary sector in decision-making. As I said earlier, the PPP process has not always gone smoothly and some commonsense views would be welcome. For that reason, I should like to press my amendment.

On Question, Whether the amendment shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 134.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courts Bill [HL]

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
	Clause 41 [Power to transfer criminal cases]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 73:
	Page 19, line 32, at end insert "after hearing representations from all parties, including those representing the interests of the victim, lay and professional witnesses and defendants"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Members of the Committee will be aware that Clause 41 at present contains power to transfer criminal proceedings. Amendment No. 73 seeks to insert at the end of the provision the words, "after hearing representations"—I shall return to the rest of the amendment in a moment.
	New Section 27A(1) of the 1980 Act provides for a magistrates' court to transfer the case to another magistrates' court, and new subsection (2) says that,
	"The court may transfer the matter before or after beginning the trial or inquiry".
	Amendment No. 73 seeks to ensure that there is an opportunity for representations to be made on the issue of the transfer of criminal proceedings. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance in this regard.
	When decisions come to be made about venue, the needs of the parties should be taken into consideration. We will be debating at a later stage the need for greater resources, but even greater resources for the courts and magistrates will not assist efficiency if the witnesses, the families, the victim and the defendant cannot afford to travel to court, particularly if the matter is transferred to a court some distance away. I add for the sake of completeness, but not as a ground for this amendment, the fact that there will of course be increased cost implications if the professional bodies have to be funded to travel long distances.
	We received a number of representations on this point, including a submission from the Law Society. The Law Society believes it is essential that proposals for court sharing contained in this Bill are considered in the light of the Court Service longer-term strategy for management of the court estate and for the provision of key services. We must ensure that these proposals assist rather than undermine those long-term plans.
	The amendment continues,
	"after hearing representations from all parties, including those representing the interests of the victim, lay and professional witnesses and defendants".
	I hope that I explained the reasoning behind the tabling of the amendment. I make the point also that in more remote rural areas, travelling to the nearest court could involve a long trip without the availability of public transport links. As mentioned before in the proceedings on this Bill, we on this side of your Lordships' Chamber are concerned about the closure of magistrates' courts and the distances that the parties involved in the proceedings have to travel to reach the next nearest court. This is not an amendment about closures; but they must be taken into account when considering the burden imposed if proceedings are transferred to a court far from the homes of those intrinsically involved in the case.
	I remind the House that the amendment merely provides for representations to be heard, not an overall requirement that it cannot be moved. If it is moved, at least those inconvenienced the most should have the chance to be heard. I beg to move.

Lord Waddington: I cannot believe that a court would transfer a case to another court without hearing what the parties had to say or considering the inconvenience that would be caused to witnesses. I shall concentrate on the reference to victims. It does not follow that a court would necessarily consider those interests before deciding whether a case should be transferred. Therefore, the amendment is useful in prompting magistrates to pay regard also to the interests of victims. It would not be right to say that it is customary for a court to take into consideration the convenience of victims. Simply because it is not customary, it is surely good to prompt courts to pay regard to the effect that the transfer would have on a victim.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue and ensuring that we debate and discuss it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for his contribution. He is unique among us, because he was possibly responsible for encouraging closures when he was the Home Secretary, so he knows more about the subject than most of us.
	We understand the sentiments behind the amendment. We take a different view: we do not think that the amendment is entirely necessary, nor do we necessarily agree that, as drafted, it would work practically. If a magistrates' court decides to transfer a case of its own motion, the parties have a right to be heard in any event. There might be practical difficulties if the amendment were adopted. It is not clear whether the amendment requires the relevant individuals' views to be ascertained before a case can be transferred. If so, that could lead to significant delays and make the transferring of cases less convenient for everyone, rather than more convenient, which is the Government's objective.
	Nor do we want the additional cost of separate legal representation for every witness as well as the parties. However, we accept that, occasionally, difficult issues may be involved in where a case should be heard. But we do not think it desirable to impose requirements that may not be necessary in ordinary cases and may cause delay, complexity and cost. We are all keen to avoid that.
	Furthermore, the court will already be required to have regard to the needs of victims, witnesses and defendants in deciding whether to transfer a matter. That is because Clause 25 empowers the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, to,
	"give directions as to the distribution of the general business of magistrates' courts".
	Clause 25(4) indicates that the directions will, in particular, require the courts to take account of where the offence is committed; where the witnesses, or the majority of them, reside; and where the person charged with the offence resides.
	On reflection, we have looked again at Clause 25 and acknowledge that the wording could be clarified to refer to "the transfer" as well as "the distribution" of the business of magistrates' courts. The two elements are different. We will, therefore, consider tabling an amendment to rectify that at a later stage. In the light of that, I doubt whether Amendment No. 73 is necessary. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I was full of opposition to the Minister when he sought to rely on arguments that it would be contrary to the bureaucracy of the justice system to allow such representations to be made over the range that I suggested. But towards the conclusion of his remarks he offered an olive branch. I wish to go away and consider it. It stayed me in my seat from pressing the amendment and testing the opinion of your Lordships' House. But, in the circumstances, I would be discourteous to the Minister if I took that view. I wish to reflect on the points that he raised and to consider with my noble friend Lord Waddington the implications of what he said on victims. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 41 agreed to.
	Clauses 42 and 43 agreed to.
	Clause 44 [Family proceedings courts]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 74:
	Page 21, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert—
	"(6) The Lord Chancellor may make rules under subsection (4) provided that he has—
	(a) published the draft rules;
	(b) consulted the Family Procedure Rule Committee; and
	(c) had regard to their recommendations."

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77, which are in the same group. They are probing amendments, which I tabled only to seek answers to questions that I asked at Second Reading and were not answered in the helpful letter that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, sent noble Lords before Committee stage. It was one of the few items that slipped through the net. When I mentioned the matter during an earlier Committee debate, the Minister said that she was willing to answer my questions. I also notified her officials of the reason why I tabled this large group. There is no sinister reason; it is just to make it convenient for the Committee.
	My basic question is: why are the Government giving the higher judiciary the power to do work currently done by lay magistrates? As I mentioned at Second Reading, I can understand why they may wish to do so in criminal proceedings, where at present there are circumstances in which cases must be remitted by the Crown Court to the magistrates' court. The Government's changes very sensibly make it possible for all the charges faced by a defendant to be dealt with at the same time in the Crown Court. I fully support that.
	But, on reading the Bill, I was puzzled as to why the Government wish to hand over the work to the higher judiciary. Perhaps they plan to phase out the lay magistracy in family proceedings courts and youth courts. I am sure that that is not the case. But one could interpret the Bill as giving that power to subsequent Lord Chancellors. This is an opportunity for the Government to put on the record their precise reason for this provision. Answer finds one none in the Explanatory Notes. Paragraph 134 of the Explanatory Notes states that Clause 44 provides for the higher judiciary to do the work of the family proceedings courts,
	"as under this Bill they will have the ability to exercise the justices' jurisdiction, although there is no current expectation that there will be widespread use of these powers in family proceedings".
	If there is no expectation that there will be widespread use, obviously it is expected that it might be convenient on occasion for the provision to be used. My simple question is: what is that convenience? What rules, if any, will be laid down? How do the Government envisage that magistrates will be expected to work under the provision?
	Clause 45, similarly, gives circuit judges and recorders the power to hear cases in youth courts without particular authorisation. Why would they be given this work? Is it in respect of cases in which a youth is charged with an adult? I do not know, but that point occurred to me.
	I shall briefly explain the effect of my amendments. Yesterday, in trying to be brief, I was taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for being too brief and not giving a full explanation.
	Clauses 44 and 45 set out the framework by which lay magistrates and district judges are to be authorised to hear family proceedings and youth cases. Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 require the Lord Chancellor to provide enough training for lay magistrates to ensure that there is a sufficient number of them to do the work of the family proceedings and youth courts. Therefore, there would be no excuse that there are not enough lay magistrates and that the work needs to be given to judges. Amendments Nos. 74 and 76 propose that rules giving the right to carry out the work to higher judiciary can be made only if the Lord Chancellor has first published the draft rules. I also require the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the recommendations of those committees which are consulted—the Family Procedure Rule Committee and the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee.
	The Lord Chancellor has made clear that he sees a long-term future for the lay magistracy. The amendments were not tabled with any hostile intent, but to give the Government the opportunity to explain how this particular change in the Bill will operate. I beg to move.

Lord Jones: With some diffidence, I support the call for training and the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, with regard to the fundamental question she asked at the beginning of her remarks. The current family court can be a harrowing place. It is often a grim drama. The Bill proposes important measures. Our scrutiny must be wise. The interests of the child are paramount, and perhaps training is everything.
	Both the current family court and the county court can take the same cases. Do Ministers have a breakdown of the percentage of cases taken to these courts? Surely the proposals are based on research and information sufficient to give the answer. Why do advocates favour the county court route? That seems to be the case. Are Ministers content with that situation? Would some contact cases be dealt with as easily in the current family courts as in county courts?
	Here, it is relevant to refer to the report by Dame Margaret Booth who referred to delays in the cases before the county courts. Dame Margaret proposed that proceedings of the current family courts should be transferred down to magistrates' courts. Is it the case that this has not happened despite the several years that have elapsed since Dame Margaret Booth published the report? Have Ministers ascertained why judges do not transfer the cases down, even when there is a long waiting list? Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor have a survey of these matters under way? Has the department reached a provisional judgment? Will the family proceedings courts get a fair crack of the whip?
	The basic question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is fair and probing. An answer could help the proceedings today.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling these amendments. I understand that they are probing. I hope to reassure her on many of the details. Again, I apologise for not responding in the letter; I was advised that the noble Baroness intended to table these amendments. Therefore, I hope to give a proper and full answer. In response to my noble friend Lord Jones, in answering many of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I shall also deal with the specific questions that he raised.
	I want to reassure the noble Baroness immediately that she is right in her assessment of our approach in dealing with summary and other cases. The example that she gave was very apposite in relation to a case which is heard in the Crown Court—one summary issue dealing with the same defendant—and it would be appropriate and convenient for the Crown Court to deal with it. Because I know that this issue will be looked at by others, perhaps it may be helpful if I go through each amendment and give a full response. I hope that will be of assistance to all those who look at the issue because I understand that there is concern. I have stressed before and stress again that the Government fully recognise the valuable role that magistrates play in family and youth jurisdiction. They are committed to retaining it and to encouraging lay magistrates to sit in these jurisdictions. They have a valuable role and we would welcome more magistrates being involved in this area.
	We are aware of the importance of having sufficient authorised justices to sit in these jurisdictions. As regards the family jurisdiction, it is the Government's intention to allocate more family work to the family proceedings courts and not to move away from the lay magistracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right that in order to encourage and enable people to do that, there are issues in relation to training. We want to achieve the most effective and efficient distribution of caseload by ensuring that cases are heard at the lowest tier of court commensurate to their nature and complexity.
	Clauses 44 and 45 set out the provisions for the constitution of family proceedings and youth courts, which are broadly similar to the present law in that individual lay justices must be authorised to hear cases in these courts. Clause 61 as drafted provides that other categories of judge have the authority of district judges (magistrates' courts) to deal with family and youth cases. The clause would allow judges of all tiers, including the High Court, to sit as youth or family justices. Provision is made for their authorisation. The reasoning is as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, anticipated. As part of the policy of greater flexibility in judicial deployment, it is proposed that High Court judges, circuit judges and recorders should be able to sit as magistrates. It would be possible therefore—as in the example given by the noble Baroness—at the end of a Crown Court case, for a judge to deal with a left-over summary offence, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty, then and there, without the case having to be sent back to the magistrates' court, which must, as the noble Baroness knows, be done at the moment.
	It is thought that that type of situation will be the main use of Clause 61. Implementation of this clause will save time and speed the dispensation of justice in those cases. As stated in the Explanatory Notes, it is not expected that extensive use would be made of this provision.
	We believe that, wherever possible, there should be consistency across jurisdictions. Accordingly, the clause applies to family proceedings as well. Neither is it expected that extensive use will be made of these powers in family cases, but again, we can give a practical example of when we envisage that these powers might be useful.
	The Government are looking at introducing specialist combined family centres, comprising co-located county courts and family proceedings courts. If a district judge (magistrates' courts) with a full list of family cases were to fall ill, Clause 61 would enable a recorder or circuit judge to take on the caseload if no other district judge (magistrates' courts) was available. That would help reduce delay in such circumstances as the majority of listed cases would still be heard. For example, should a list collapse and there was spare time, it would be helpful to deal with the cases rather than sending people away .
	Finally, the President of the Family Division has been consulted on these clauses and is content.
	I turn to the detail of the amendments tabled to Clauses 44 and 45; Amendments Nos. 74 and 76. They deal with consultation on rules to be made under these clauses and have the effect of adding to the face of the Bill that the Lord Chancellor shall "publish" draft rules and shall take into consideration the views of the rule committee.
	If I tell the Committee what happens currently, the noble Baroness may be satisfied that it complies with what she proposes in the amendment. I am not sure what the word "publish" means within the amendment, but it may be covered. It does not have a single meaning in statute. It is common practice for the department to consult on draft rules via its website in any event, as well as to send them to interested parties. I hope the noble Baroness will therefore see that the draft is in the domain so that comments can be made upon it.
	Looking at the proposed duty to,
	"have regard to the recommendations",
	of the rules committee, the courts have made it clear that in order to comply with the statutory duty to consult, the person under the duty must conscientiously take into account the product of the consultation. That being the case, we are not sure that the proposed duty adds anything—and we are concerned that it would have, if adopted, the unlooked-for effect of suggesting that statutory references to consultation which are not set out in such detail are somehow deficient. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not like that. I see her nodding in assent.
	Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 seek to impose a duty on the Lord Chancellor to,
	"make provision for the training of a sufficient number of lay justices",
	to sit in the youth courts and family proceedings courts. I put forward the argument similar to those that I put forward in relation to magistrates. I am sure that in this case, too, the noble Baroness is not seeking to suggest that we should appoint any magistrates just to make up the numbers. They must be of the right quality and nature to fit the bill and we would not seek to appoint unsuitable people.
	I have made clear previously in Committee, and I do so again today, that the commitment to increase the use made of magistrates remains. When we previously met in Committee, I gave the figures that we intend to aim for and there is nothing I would want to say today which would detract from any of those comments.
	I turn to the authorisation system more generally. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out our thinking on the new rules for magistrates. The legislation expresses only rule-making powers rather than the substance of those rules. The substance of the rules will be dealt with thoroughly and with appropriate consultation in due course. So views are not finalised on exactly what such new rules will say, but I can indicate the direction of our thinking if the noble Baroness would find that helpful.
	Magistrates are currently selected for youth and family work by being voted by their fellow magistrates on to local panels. This system applies outside inner London. Within inner London, special arrangements apply. This selection system can sometimes be a little inconsistent across the jurisdiction as it need not be based on any particular selection criteria and may not reflect the particular qualities of the magistrates concerned. It will in any case cease to be workable or appropriate when magistrates have a national rather than purely local jurisdiction, including in family matters.
	We will therefore establish a system by which suitable magistrates will be selected and trained under a more transparent procedure. There will be appropriate consultation on the detail of the new rules, as has already been discussed. Much work on this has already been done by my department and stakeholders working together, and there is a general agreement that the inner London selection model has proven successful and can provide a useful starting point for a national model. There is a consensus among stakeholders that Bench training and development committees should retain a key role in selecting magistrates for these jurisdictions, so it is not proposed to lose the local link which currently exists, but merely to make the selection process more transparent and criteria-based.
	On other occasions in relation to children matters, the noble Baroness has fully understood the importance of ensuring that we have the right quality of person, be it a lay or professional judge undertaking the work. We are aware that it would be problematic to require all current panel magistrates to re-qualify under a new system. We envisage that a transitional provision will provide that magistrates on panels under the current system will be deemed to be authorised under the new system.
	I hope that I have managed to reassure Members of the Committee about the provisions and that there is in no way a lack of confidence in the lay magistracy—quite the reverse. All parts of the judiciary are made better able to support each other, which I am sure the noble Baroness will welcome.
	I was asked by my noble friend Lord Jones about the percentage of work taken in the family proceedings courts and the county courts. Under the Children Act, there are 14,130 public law applications in the family proceedings courts. In the county courts there are 9,834. As regards private law applications and family proceedings courts, there are 25,411 and as regards the county courts there are 86,269. We do not have percentages, but the figures above reflect the applications made to the court. They are from the judicial statistics for 2001, which are published by the Lord Chancellor's Department. We can write later with more details if my noble friend requires them, but I hope that those figures will be sufficient to satisfy him today.
	On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It is a formula always to thank Ministers for their answers. Today, I do so not as a formula but wholeheartedly. She has done not only this Committee but also everyone outside a service in the clarity of her explanation. As the noble Lord, Lord Jones, rightly said in regard to family proceedings courts, they are a grim drama. They are difficult courts for people to appear in—unless the case is for adoption, in which case it is a joyous time, but such occasions are few and far between.
	I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the Government intend to encourage lay magistrates to stay in the family proceedings courts and for setting out clearly the practical way in which the Government will try to achieve that; by making a more transparent system for the selection and training of lay justices. As one who was earlier allocated to sit on what was then a youth court but became a family proceedings court, I can see the advantages of the system that the Government propose to introduce.
	I congratulate the Government on examining the practical method of having co-location of county courts and family proceedings courts in order to ensure that cases may go ahead where otherwise they might collapse. When people work themselves up to appear in such a court case, and when so much is at stake for them, it is appalling that the case should collapse. It is often a traumatic experience. Any such steps that the Government can take will only be welcome to me and I hope to other Members of the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
	Clause 44 agreed to.
	Clause 45 [Youth courts]:
	[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
	Clause 45 agreed to.
	Clause 46 [Court security officers]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 78:
	Page 22, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We move to consider the new court security regime under which court business may be conducted by the Supreme Court, county courts and magistrates' courts, and to which the public have access. We have carefully considered the Auld review, which commented on the gradual withdrawal of police officers and a reduction in the overall police presence in courts. We need to consider that and how best to deal with security provision and security powers.
	There has been a disturbing increase in the level of violence in the form of threats of violence, actual violence, the intimidation of witnesses and violence against the judiciary. It is in that light that we should consider how best to move forward and thus the amendments concern Clause 46.
	We also have an opportunity to highlight the importance of court security officers, given that they will have powers of search, as set out in Clause 47; powers to exclude, remove or restrain persons, as set out in Clause 48; as well as powers to force individuals to surrender articles in their possession. They will be able to seize and retain such articles, as regulations later in the Bill set out. Furthermore, offences are created to deal with any individual who obstructs or assaults a court security officer.
	I have made inquiries with law firms and within my own firm, Beachcroft Wansbroughs, to discover the up-to-date position on the level of violence. From the reports I received, I came to realise that there is still a disturbing level of violence, even in the simplest road traffic accident cases, during which tempers can rise. We must be aware that even though the offence may be comparatively minor, the risk of violence is still present. I wanted to take a moment to paint the backdrop to this discussion about court security officers.
	The clause designates a court security officer as,
	"a person who is—
	"(a) appointed by the Lord Chancellor . . . and designated . . . as a court security officer".
	The clause then sets out the power to make regulations. Amendment No. 78 seeks to leave out the word "may" at the start of subsection (2) and insert the word "shall", thus requiring the Lord Chancellor to make regulations. Then, following subsection (2)(a) covering,
	"training courses to be completed by court security officers",—
	which I am sure I and all Members of the Committee welcome—paragraph (b) provides that the Lord Chancellor will also make regulations concerning the,
	"conditions to be met before a person may be designated as a court security officer".
	Of course it is absolutely critical to ensure that the right people become such officers. To that end, Amendment No. 79 would insert the words,
	"including conditions as to good character".
	The amendments provide an opportunity for the Committee to probe the Government on who they envisage will fulfil the functions of court security officers. What kind of educational qualifications do the Government have in mind, or is a more skills-based approach envisaged? Will the conditions to be set out by the Lord Chancellor include checks on criminal records? How much of a bar will that be to an individual becoming a court security officer? More generally, will there be a good character requirement? Will applicants need to present a track record not only of experience in security matters, but also to demonstrate that they are able to cope with such responsibilities? It is a fact that quite often those who assume powers as extensive as these have a tendency immediately to abuse them. I hope that that will not happen, but a number of examples could be cited of perhaps overzealous searching. We shall reach amendments dealing with the specifics in a moment.
	I am sure that noble Lords want the best possible people to become court security officers and I hope that the amendments will give the Government an opportunity to set out their proposed regime.
	The Law Society has made separate representations on the issue and has stated that,
	"where any civilian exercises powers usually only exercised by the police, it is important to ensure that these powers are properly regulated and that those exercising them are accountable".
	I look forward to the Minister's clarification. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: The provisions in this part of the Bill are among the most important. It was probably in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when he spoke, that a couple of years ago a judge, Her Honour Judge Goddard, was physically attacked at the Old Bailey. That is only one example of many acts of violence and intimidation which have raised concerns about the lack of security. Rather like the housing estates built in the heyday of the 1950s and 1960s, in the "pre-violent" era—if I may exaggerate a little—the architecture and design of courts was not meant to deal with the "post-violent" situation that we face today. No doubt the Lord Chancellor's Department is interested in the internal design and architecture of courtrooms and court buildings, but it would not be feasible to tackle those issues in the legislation. In this part of the Bill, however, the department is seeking to achieve a valuable improvement; that is, to implement the concerns and proposals set out by Lord Justice Auld in his report. In paragraph 109 of the chapter covering court security, he found the present position to be "disturbing". That is rather an understatement of the position.
	I am a little worried whether the Government's proposals will deal adequately with both public concerns and the concerns expressed in the Auld report. One of the features of the report with which I am strongly in agreement is the concern that the public needs to be reassured. In the past that reassurance was conferred by the presence of police officers in the courts. Of course Lord Justice Auld was referring to uniformed police officers. They provide a tremendous level of deterrence as well as reassurance for the general public, witnesses and others who may not particularly want to go to court, but public duty and obligation require them to do so. I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department can reassure me that court security officers will look as much like policemen as possible and will incorporate in the style of uniform those essential elements of deterrence and reassurance.
	I am not sure about the wording of the amendments before the Committee, but if they are meant to pep up the Government's proposals, then they deserve a fair wind. To alter "may" to "shall" is a familiar way of achieving that, although my noble friend on the Front Bench may say that it is not necessary. Similarly, on the question of good character, my noble friend may respond by saying that of course the department will provide for it. Given that I am sympathetic to the thinking that lies behind the amendments, such responses would provide some reassurance both for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I.

Lord Waddington: I am not usually greatly impressed by amendments that seek to substitute "shall" for "may", but I submit that in this case it would be useful. Although the clause and the amendments concern the making of regulations, the effect of substituting "shall" for "may" would be that the Lord Chancellor would have to make regulations. He would hardly make regulations unless as a result of so doing, and having been compelled so to do, training would then follow. We are discussing whether the Bill should state firmly, fairly and squarely that there must be training. Surely it would be useful for the Bill to underline that fact. There must be training for court security officers; it must not be a matter in the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. If everyone agrees on that, then the right word is "shall", not "may".

Lord Morris of Aberavon: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief comment on what I have come to regard, over the years, as a deterioration in the standards of security in our courts. I sat as a recorder, on and off, for more than 20 years—the time that I was off was when I was a Minister—and in my young days there was always a policeman in court. That was also the experience in magistrates' courts. Never now do you see a policeman; frequently not even a dock officer; and, indeed, when I was sitting as a recorder, the clerk would come to me at the end of a case and whisper in my ear that if I was minded to pass a sentence whereby the defendant would lose his or her liberty, would I adjourn for a few minutes in order that a dock officer could be provided. That is not a proper way to run a judicial system.
	We all recall the fearsome attack made on Judge Goddard in the Central Criminal Court. She was distressingly and quite badly injured. She was back in court very shortly, and a very brave lady she is, as those of us who know her can attest. I had the same experience—I was not the one under attack, fortunately—when one of my clients leapt over the dock in a very old court, No. 1 court at the Old Bailey, and went for his honour Judge Capstick, the Common Serjeant. Fortunately he was stopped in time, but it could have been an equally bad situation.
	We need an assurance that there will be safety in our courts. No amount of detailed provision, whether "may" or "shall", will provide that safety unless there is someone on the ground to ensure that an irate defendant, or even a witness, does not leap at the judge or at anyone else in the court. Taking a slightly contrary view to many others, I wonder whether we need to particularise to the extent of whether there should be training courses; whether certain conditions should be met; whether there should be a uniform or a badge; or whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated, character should be taken into account. All of those requirements are self-evident.
	If a paramount duty is upon the Lord Chancellor to ensure safety in our courts so that justice can be safely done, a simple clause stating that he should take appropriate steps to ensure that safety would be sufficient. No amount of particularisation, in whatever detail, will achieve that end unless, ultimately, in the daily happenings of our courts, there is someone there to keep a watchful eye to ensure that nothing goes wrong.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I agree with every word that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, has said. My experience may be a little out of date—but perhaps not all that much out of date—and accords entirely with that of the noble and learned Lord. We spent our professional careers in the criminal courts, either as counsels or recorders. As the noble and learned Lord said, when one started at the Bar—certainly in Manchester in the 1950s—one always had a uniformed policeman in court. One has seen the steady erosion of the position of a security officer in courts since that time.
	Judges are concerned about this issue. They say that they greatly miss at times the security of having a policeman present when they are dealing with particular criminals. They express their concern that standards of security in our courts, for understandable reasons—there are other demands on police time—have reduced over the years. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I believe that the amendment is important. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor's Department must realise how vital it is that there should be a properly trained security service.
	I have never had anything thrown at me but, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, I have been present during an incident. In my early days at the Bar, my first recollection was seeing a prisoner, who was giving evidence, picking up a jug of water, a glass container, and hurling it—some may say with justification—at the head of Mr Justice Austin Jones. The speed with which the then detective superintendent of police, Superintendent Nimmo, whom my noble friend Lord Waddington will remember, managed to get from where he was sitting to the witness box to flatten the man even before the glass arrived on the judge's desk was remarkable. It gives confidence if there are people present who are able to give that degree of security.

Lord Waddington: Before my noble friend sits down, surely he remembers the occasion when Noel Barrie Goldie was sitting as a recorder at Manchester when a criminal leapt out of the dock. He got as far as the clerk, Mr Redhead, who is reputed to have given him a leg up.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: If I were to reminisce about Mr Noel Barrie Goldie we would be here for rather longer than the time intended for the Bill. I can confirm that the matter described by my noble friend Lord Waddington did occur, although it is not necessarily confirmed that Redhead helped him on his way.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful. I feel that I have enjoyed an education as a result of the debate on the amendment.
	It is worth reflecting that the clause establishes on the face of the Bill, for the first time in law, the distinct role of a court security officer. We are debating a matter of substance to which the Government have given much thought. The clause also defines when a court security officer is considered to be acting in the execution of his or her duty. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make provision for training courses for officers and to specify the conditions that have to be met before a person is designated as a court security officer.
	The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, may suggest that we are being too specific in doing so—I believe that was the drift of his argument—but we believe that this is a matter of such importance that we should spell out in detail exactly how we expect court security officers to exercise their duties.
	Currently there is a disparity in the security provisions for the magistrates' and county courts, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. Only in the magistrates' courts is there a statutory provision for court security. When I read my notes on this, I was somewhat surprised about that.
	As many noble Lords have said, the number of court security incidents is rising, partly due to a lack of authoritative security personnel with effective powers and partly due to the general decline in society's respect for the law and for authority, a point made by a number of noble Lords. That is something that we as a government have a duty to get hold of, to consider and to act on. That is what we are doing with the clause.
	I was somewhat heartened to hear—it is all relative—that this is not a new problem. Noble Lords opposite waxed lyrical in their recollections, but they were quite valuable because they put a finger on the problem— that there is a general decline in trust and respect for the law and authority. We need to tackle that issue.
	The decision to establish the new role of court security officer is motivated by a desire to put in place uniform security provisions across all courts and to combat the rise in the number of incidents involving violence and threatened violence that is occurring. The appalling incident involving Judge Goddard is the most notable one in recent times.
	As currently drafted, the clause gives the Lord Chancellor a power to make, by regulations, provision as to training courses to be completed by court security officers and to specify the conditions that must be met prior to a person being designated as a court security officer. The amendment would turn that power into a duty.
	We recognise the importance of recruiting the right people to be court security officers. It is also vital that they receive suitable and, importantly, sufficient training to enable them to carry out these powers lawfully and effectively. The role carries significant responsibility, so it is crucial that a certain standard should be met before a person can become a court security officer. Although it is difficult to detail the kinds of qualities and skills that will be necessary, we believe that such qualities as effective communication will be important. We need to be certain that, in carrying that significant responsibility, people attain a certain standard. I ought to spell out at an early stage that it is envisaged that there will be a full criminal records check to make sure that applicants are of good character. A number of Members of the Committee referred to that important point.
	The importance of the issues raised is clear. However, it is not yet clear whether regulations will be the most practical, effective or necessary way of dealing with the issues. Phrasing the clause in terms of a power will give the Lord Chancellor time to develop and test proposals, so that full consideration can be given to the best method of presenting any necessary standards or training programmes and assuring that they are met. We believe that it is important that the power should contain that flexibility. We fully accept the importance of the issues referred to in the clause, but we prefer the flexibility of approach that a power offers. I hope that Members of the Committee will consider that point. Flexibility is important in constructing standards and programmes. I hope that the amendment on that issue will be withdrawn.
	Amendment No. 79 seeks to amend Clause 46(2). Again, as it currently stands, the clause gives my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor a power to make provision, by regulation, as to conditions to be met before a person may be designated as a court security officer. The amendment would require that regulations made under this power would include a condition as to the good character of the person concerned. I am clear that we will require persons of good character. As I said earlier, full security checks will be made.
	The role of the court security officer will carry a high level of responsibility to the court, to its users and to the wider public. Inherent in the position is an assumption that the person will be of good character. Central to the function of a court security officer, therefore, is a requirement that a person inspires the confidence of his or her employers and the public and that he or she can be depended upon to carry out his or her role in a fair, responsible and efficient manner. At least one reference was made to officers not being overly officious in carrying out searches, for example. We shall come to that point later. The Government feel that if regulations are made setting out the conditions to be met before a person can be designated as a court security officer, conditions as to good character should rank as a high priority.
	A question was raised about accountability. The performance of court security regimes will be covered by the inspectorate. In the past we have not had an inspectorate that has fully covered the court service, but the new unified inspectorate will make this one of its priority areas.
	The issue of uniforms was raised. It is our intention that the court security officer will be readily identifiable. It is currently envisaged that the most effective way would be by way of uniform.
	I believe that I have answered all the points raised and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment. I am delighted that this issue has been treated with such seriousness and that there is a desire on all sides of the Committee to ensure that we get the very best from what is essentially a new court security service, and that it fulfils expectations in the way that we all hope it will.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may add one possibly constructive contribution. In the old days, when looking for security officers the courts made a great deal of use of retired police officers. Now, you hardly ever see a retired police officer around. They may be getting older, but they still look fit and have a degree of authority about them. It is an area where one might well look for recruits.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord raises a very positive point. When shaping the programme of advertising for posts within the court security service, we shall be looking for exactly that kind of person. We want to attract officers of the calibre of community support officers, investigating officers, detention officers, escort officers and police officers. All of those positions in our law and order family are important. We need the same calibre of person to fulfil the role of court security officer.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: Following the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, perhaps I may add that ex-servicemen, non-commissioned soldiers, would make admirable security officers along the lines proposed. They are the kind of people who have the authority, and that is important.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We all enjoy the benefits of having former service personnel in this place. They do an excellent job here and I am sure they could do an excellent job in our courts.

Lord Borrie: Before the Minister finally sits down, perhaps I may intervene in a way which is not so positive as the last two contributions. I was not entirely satisfied by the noble Lord's response to my queries about uniform. Clause 46 refers to a security officer being identifiable,
	"by means of his uniform or badge or otherwise".
	That made me rather unhappy. I travel on London buses. This may be a very old-fashioned, old fogeyish thing to say, but, nowadays, I do not always recognise the conductor—because he is certainly not wearing a cap, he is probably not wearing a uniform and he is sitting down some way towards the front of the bus; it is only after one has been going for some time that one notices that someone rather ill-dressed—no better or worse dressed than anyone else—occasionally puts his hand up and indicates to the driver by way of a couple of pulls on the bell that it is time for the bus to move off. If we are to have real reassurance in the courts and real deterrence, which is part of what all this is about, there is surely a specific need for a uniformed individual.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should have made it plainer: it is our expectation that court security officers will be uniformed. That is what we seek. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for his response, in particular to Amendment No. 79. It may be of assistance to the Committee if I indicate that it is not my intention to press that amendment. The Minister has made us aware of the intention to ensure that people who take on these important tasks are of good character.
	I wondered, however, when I heard the Minister's response to Amendment No. 78, whether he had been listening to some of the contributions made in the debate. Perhaps I may refer first to the very effective speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. I had a great deal of sympathy with his point. We ought to reflect on whether there should not simply be a duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure safety in our courts—full stop. That goes slightly further than the proposal in my amendment, but it is a point on which I should like to reflect and to which I shall perhaps return at a later stage. We are where we are, and we have a power to make provision. It is that which I found disappointing in the Minister's response.
	My noble friend Lord Waddington made the effective point that the Lord Chancellor must make these regulations and there should be a duty on him to do so. I was troubled when the Minister said that he was unsure whether regulations would be the right way forward, and that there was a need for flexibility. He said that, if the Lord Chancellor were under a duty, he would not have the flexibility to decide on other ways forward, apart from making regulations.
	I came to the debate believing that the Minister would say that, of course, regulations would be made to ensure that there were proper training courses and conditions to be met before someone could be designated a court officer. I am now worried that we may never see any regulations, because the Lord Chancellor wants flexibility. The Minister asked us to keep the word "may" to ensure that the Lord Chancellor,
	"has the flexibility to decide on the best way forward".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: To avoid any doubt, I shall repeat what I believe I said when speaking to Amendment No. 78. As currently drafted, the clause gives the Lord Chancellor a power to make, by regulations, provision as to training courses to be completed by court security officers and conditions that must be met prior to a person being designated as a court security officer. I thought that was what I said earlier, and I hope it will satisfy Members of the Committee. At that stage I was talking about a power to make provisions by regulation. I hope that deals with any confusion that might exist in the noble Lord's mind.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: The amendment would put a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make regulations. That is the point on which I differ with the Minister, who made much of the fact that the Lord Chancellor might decide that, in making provision, regulations were not the correct way forward. That might be what happens. When he reads Hansard, he will see that that was what he said, and he may want to refer to his speaking note. I am not sure that the Committee should be content with that flexibility.
	I welcomed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who was right to emphasise the strategic importance of what we are debating. He made a valuable contribution to the debate. My noble friend Lord Carlisle not only led us down the road to some wonderful memories, but also gave some chilling examples of how badly things can go wrong. How right he is that people miss the security of having a police officer present.
	I do not believe that noble Lords will be satisfied with a merely permissive and flexible provision that the Lord Chancellor will make regulations if he thinks fit. We should make it a duty. Therefore, I want to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 78.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 78) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 116.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
	Clause 46 agreed to.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Before Clause 47, insert the following new clause—
	"INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 47 AND 48
	In sections 47 and 48, the term "any person" does not include judges and justices of the peace who are present in, or seeking to enter, a court building for the purposes of their duties."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We now move on to consider powers of search and powers to exclude, remove or restrain persons. The purpose of the new clause is to press the Government to explain the powers of court security officers in relation to judges and magistrates. Clauses 47 and 48 give court security officers the power to search any person seeking to enter a court building. The power to exclude, remove or restrain also applies to any person in a court building in certain circumstances. There appears to be no qualification of the phrase "any person" in the Bill. Presumably, those powers could be exercised in relation to judges or magistrates who were seeking to enter or were present in a court building for the purpose of hearing cases. The powers could even extend to the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls when they were seeking to enter the Royal Courts of Justice.
	I hope the Minister will be able to say whether the Government intend that the provision should apply to everybody. If so, will court security officers be given training or guidance on what to do if they are concerned to deal with the searching of a judge or magistrate?
	There are a number of ramifications. For instance, one can imagine a senior female judge refusing to undergo a search by a male court security officer. Under the powers given in Clause 48, the judge could be excluded from the court building, which would create obvious difficulties.
	I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the position and will tell us what guidance the Government intend to issue to court security officers on how to deal with judges and magistrates, whom they may encounter in the course of their security duties.
	I have not spoken to Amendment No. 81, which is also worthy of attention. I leave that to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I shall speak to Amendment No. 81, which has been grouped with Amendment No. 80, although it raises a slightly different point. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, has raised a serious point, although the way in which it has been framed may reinforce the view of some that judges are not, in fact, people.
	We have tabled Amendment No. 81 because it seems clear that most of the court security officers will come from private security companies rather than being trained police or other public servants. In general, the public have a right of access to courts. Keeping the courts in general open to the public, save in very limited circumstances, is a constitutional obligation. It is therefore desirable that members of the public seeking to enter a court should not be deterred from exercising their right to do so by intrusive searches by court security officers. Can the Minister assure us that searches will be carried out sensitively and that officers will be given guidance on that?
	The intention of our amendment is to specify that a court security officer can search people only if there is something suspicious about the person or if the circumstances are such that special care is likely to be needed. That would be the case during a trial for a terrorist offence or a trial of someone who is believed to be a member of a violent gang. In those circumstances, there could be justification for searching everybody, but in many cases searches would be unnecessary and intrusive. We hope we can be assured that excessive searching will not be carried out in such cases.

Lord Waddington: I am a little concerned by the wording of Amendment No. 81. I am glad that it is included in the Marshalled List as it gives us the opportunity to discuss an important matter.
	Routine checks are carried out at St Stephen's entrance as it is impossible to tell among a considerable throng of people whether someone is carrying a rope to enable him or her to abseil down from the Gallery, as once happened, or whether someone is carrying a brick to throw at some politician he or she does not like, or, indeed, in these dangerous times, whether someone is carrying a hand grenade. It is important to carry out such routine checks when people wish to enter this building. I cannot see the difference between the situation here and that which appertains in a court. Many people attend court for good reason. They may be parties to a case or genuinely interested in, or worried about, the outcome of a case. However, others attend from idle curiosity. Others attend to pass the time of day and others attend, I fear, in order to make mischief. Therefore, I believe that it is proper that routine checks should be carried out to ensure that people are not carrying dangerous material.

Lord Borrie: The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made some important points which we should all take into account. Everyone who took part in the debate on the previous amendment—I believe that although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was present, he did not take part in that debate—appreciated the very great importance at the present time of ensuring the safety and the security of court users. I include in that everyone from judges and jurors to witnesses and, indeed, those who attend court as members of the public to observe the proceedings.
	Recently there have been a number of violent incidents. In the debate on the previous amendment Members of the Committee mentioned the decline in the number of uniformed policemen in our courts and the rather extraordinary situation that the Crown Court seems to be less protected in regard to security than the magistrates' court. Members of the Committee considered that the security of those who entered court buildings was of the greatest importance.
	If the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I should have accused him of using words at variance with those he used with regard to the previous amendment. I do not understand how he can support Amendment No. 81—to which his name is not attached—spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—

Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for giving way. The two amendments are not inconsistent. Amendment No. 80 gives judges and justices an absolute right to enter court buildings without being searched. Amendment No. 81 does not give any such right to members of the general public. It merely seeks to ensure that searching is not intrusive or excessive.

Lord Borrie: It is my fault if I did not make myself clear but I was not referring to the differences between Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. I was referring to the differences between the proposition in Amendment No. 81 and the statements made by Members of the Committee on both sides and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, in the debate on the previous amendment as distinct from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in this debate.
	What we are talking about here are court buildings and the safety of those who carry out various roles—judges, witnesses and so on—in them. To hobble the power of search in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggests and to require "reasonable grounds to believe"—a phrase with which we are all familiar and which has been legally tested as requiring a heavy burden of proof to satisfy—before taking certain action is to go too far. If the noble Lord had used the term "reasonable suspicion", I should be happier. The powers of search we are discussing do not apply anywhere and everywhere. They apply to court buildings. Given our experience in court buildings in recent years, the lack of security and the view expressed on all sides of the Committee in the debate on the previous amendment as regards the need for a deterrent presence, preferably of uniformed security officers, it would be unwise to support Amendment No. 81.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I am concerned about the wording of Amendment No. 81 which states:
	"An officer may carry out a search . . . only if he has reasonable grounds to believe—
	(a) that the person is in possession of an article which ought to be surrendered".
	I find it difficult to see how a court security officer showing people into the public gallery of a court will be able to say whether he has reasonable grounds to believe, or even suspects, that any of them are carrying a weapon. The measure is far too restrictive as it stands.
	I go wider. I cannot see what is the objection to a general search, certainly in certain circumstances. What does one mean by the word "search"? Does one mean a search physically carried out by an individual or a search carried out by a machine? I remind the Committee that every single member of the public, every single member of the Bar and every single instructing solicitor who walks into the Old Bailey passes through a machine and must also put his possessions through a machine to enable them to be checked. I do not think that I have ever heard any member of the Bar complain about that. I believe that that is the only way in which one can obtain the necessary security.
	In a major drugs trial or a major terrorist trial is it unreasonable to search those who enter the public gallery? Must an officer limit searches to those he has reasonable grounds to believe may be carrying an article which ought to be surrendered? I say to my noble friend Lord Hunt, speaking purely for myself, that although I recognise that it is important to respect the dignity of judges and justices, I question whether it is appropriate to exclude them from search provisions. I was involved in a trial of Libyan terrorists in which all counsel were physically searched each day before we entered or left the court or re-entered it. One might say that that was unnecessary but the police obviously were not of that view. They believed that they were right to conduct those searches. To my knowledge no one complained of being searched.
	I suspect that in some areas magistrates when entering court may pass through machines similar to those in place at the Old Bailey. They may also be searched as they enter court. I question whether Amendment No. 80 is necessary to uphold the dignity of judges and magistrates. Certainly, I believe that Amendment No. 81 goes much further than is desirable.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: As regards Amendment No. 80, it would be necessary, if it were generally acceptable, to look at the drafting with a view to protecting the position of a security officer who does not believe that someone claiming to be a magistrate or a judge is a magistrate or a judge, or has doubts about that. The measure should certainly be limited to people whom the officer concerned is satisfied are judges or magistrates. I do not think that we need bother with the phrase concerning entering
	"for the purposes of their duties"
	but the officer must be satisfied that they are judges or magistrates. As regards Amendment No. 81 and the powers of search, I am bound to say that I agree that in some circumstances one must search everyone entering a court.
	By way of pure anecdote and perhaps to enliven the proceedings, I shall recall when I was the judge in an IRA trial at the Old Bailey and was accompanied by an armed detective sergeant. Of course, as a judge I entered through the judges' entrance. When I was in the back corridors, I was met by a uniformed attendant employed by the Corporation of the City of London, who was obviously very doubtful about the whole situation. He accepted that I was the judge, and I said, "This chap's my minder", or words to that effect. He replied, "Well, I'll have to look at that". The detective sergeant then opened his coat, revealing two revolvers—whereupon the attendant said, "Oh, come in".

Lord Swinfen: The question of terrorist and major drugs trials has already been discussed in relation to Amendment No. 81, so I shall not go into that, but I would like to take the opportunity to raise a question about Clause 47(2). It states:
	"Subsection (1) does not authorise the officer to require a person to remove any of his clothing other than a coat, jacket, gloves or hat".
	What is the position with regard to potential suicide bombers? They pose a growing problem throughout the world that could well come to this country and be used to disrupt a terrorist trial. Explosives are becoming more sophisticated, and I am sure that a good suicide bomber could wear a tight-fitting corset that would not necessarily be discovered by removing only a jacket.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It has been a helpful debate on the amendment. We ought to start by reminding ourselves of the purpose of the provisions, which I take to be that we are all concerned—in a sense, I suppose that we are putting that concern into the legislation—to ensure public protection and safety. We need to take measures that are, to use the expressions of the day, proportionate, reasonable in the circumstances and appropriate to the demands of the time.
	I was drawn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. He was right, in that in general terms few of us have any objection at all to being searched. I take comfort when I am searched after going through the security barriers when I board an aeroplane, because it makes me feel more content that I am likely to be entering a safer environment on the other side.
	We know that courts can be disrupted and that there have been incidents. We are well aware of the terrorist threat that can confront us, so what we have to do is to put in place measures that work, are flexible, operable and also sensitive. That is plainly what we are trying to do.
	Clause 47 gives a court security officer power to search a person on entry or who is already in a court building, and to search any article in such a person's possession. It is worth saying that that power is in line with the existing powers enjoyed by court security officers, so it is based on something that we know works well, although it is no doubt not perfect. Clause 48 confers a power to exclude, remove or restrain persons who are in a court building, if it is necessary to do so for specified reasons.
	Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 may not contradict each other; one could argue that they cover adjacent areas. They would raise some issues of interpretation. The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 80 would reduce the scope of the powers currently in place by preventing their exercise in respect of judges or justices of the peace who were present in, or sought to enter, a court building for the purposes of their duties.
	As we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in general judges and justices of the peace enter a court building through a specially designated entrance, and the current search policy is that those who enter in that way are not searched. We have no doubt that that will continue to be the case. However, there may be occasions when judges or justices of the peace enter a building through the public entrance. In that situation, the policy is that they will be searched in the same way as all others using that entrance. That seems plainly sensible and right. Why should they be singled out or discriminated in favour of in any way? As some Members of the Committee have said, failure to search a judge or justice of the peace, who are often not recognisable as such, on using a public entrance to a court building could provoke complaints and accusations of discrimination from members of the public who are subsequently searched.
	We appreciate that there will rarely, if ever, be occasions when a court security officer will need to exercise his powers of exclusion, removal or restraint in respect of a judge or a justice of the peace. As we all know, all judges are as sober as judges, and we would not expect them to be otherwise. They are people of good character. Equally, we appreciate that occasions on which searches will lead to the surrender or seizure of weapons will be exceptional. However, a universal policy on search, removal, exclusion and restraint is necessary to retain and promote public confidence.
	Perhaps it is worth adding that the existing statutory provision for court security officers refers, as the Bill does, to "any person", and does not contain an exception for justices.
	Amendment No. 81 proposes that a subsection be added to the Bill restricting the ability of court security officers to carry out searches of those in, or seeking to enter, court premises. It would allow searches only in instances where court security officers had reasonable grounds to suspect that that person or some other person was in or was likely to be in possession of an item which might jeopardise the maintenance of order in the court building, put the safety of any person in the court building at risk or be evidence of an offence.
	Members of the Committee may wish to note that the clause is in line with the existing powers enjoyed by court security officers in the magistrates' court under Section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and court security officers under Section 80(1)(c) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. We are not aware of any evidence that the current "search of all" powers applied in the court are unacceptable to court users. We have not had complaints on that. The amendment therefore would represent a diminution of powers currently enjoyed, and would actively reduce the ability of court security guards to search those in, or seeking to enter, court buildings. Is that wise at this time? I do not think so.
	Figures indicate that in excess of 22,500 firearms, knives and tools are collected each year as a result of the automatic search powers currently enjoyed by court security officers. That is a pretty devastating statistic. A diminution of powers would inevitably increase the ability of prohibited items to be brought into court buildings and the frequency of serious incidents. In most cases, it is not obvious that a person may be carrying a weapon that is offensive or dangerous, or potentially so. Therefore, it would be difficult for a court security officer to carry out searches without attracting claims of victimisation or discrimination.
	We of course recognise the importance of abiding by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guards against unnecessary interference with an individual's right to respect for private life.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We are seeking to absorb the statistic that the Minister threw at us. Rather than stating again that 22,000 guns, knives and other implements are confiscated, will he give us a breakdown of them, if only to reassure us that they are not in the main exceedingly serious implements? If they were, the approach necessary would have to change.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: When I first looked at the notes, I wanted to give such a breakdown, but I cannot. We can assume that there will be few firearms in that figure, but such items have been recovered at the entrances to courtrooms.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Perhaps I can assist the Minister. It may be that some items are a pair of nail scissors or a penknife or something minor. If he cannot give the Committee any figures now perhaps he will do so before we reach Report stage.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have stood in a security queue at the Old Bailey when the person in front of me placed a flick knife in the tray and the policeman at the far end did a double take. He said, "What on earth do you think you are doing, I can arrest you for that", to which the man said, "I didn't think there was anything wrong in carrying it into the Old Bailey".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: All those points are helpful in underlining the importance of court security services. The vast majority of items will be knives. Far too many people carry knives in such circumstances and we must guard against that.
	We take a serious view of the matter and that is why we believe that the powers in the Bill are right and appropriate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate; it has underlined the importance that we place on the matter. While I understand the spirit in which both sets of amendments have been moved, I believe that we have the correct balance. As matters stand, the system works. The powers that we seek to continue are accurately described in the Bill as it stands. To depart from what we have drafted, particularly as suggested by Amendment No. 81, could have a serious impact upon court security.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Perhaps the Minister would speak to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen about dealing with suicide bombers under Clause 47(2) which states:
	"Subsection (1) does not authorise the officer to require a person to remove any of his clothing other than a coat, jacket, gloves or hat".

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Given that our court buildings are public buildings, ultimately it would be impossible to prevent entry, even to the entrance foyer, to the general public. Initial searches, particularly in the supreme court, will invariably, as noble Lords have described, be by way of machine—the arch or the wand—which would detect any such terrorist as described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Certainly at the supreme court we have in place more than adequate measures which are vitally important for security for all those involved in court processes. I hope that that deals with the point raised by the noble Lord. We are well aware of the matter. Clearly we must take careful account of the degree of risk at any time.

Lord Swinfen: I would be grateful if the noble Lord would consider this matter seriously. Clause 47(2) limits the ability of a security officer to search someone. The Minister will have seen films and plays in which unmarried actresses are shown looking fairly heavily pregnant and slim actors looking quite rotund. If that can be achieved by the acting profession and good props departments it can be achieved by the terrorist as well. By leaving subsection (2) in the Bill the Minister restricts security at courts. I believe that he should seriously reconsider this point. I shall not ask him to answer the matter in detail at this stage, but I believe that he should give an undertaking to reconsider it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We take the matter seriously. I am happy to give an undertaking that we shall consider the wording to ensure that it is adequate. In most circumstances, the degree of search envisaged by the subsection will be adequate. I take on board the noble Lord's point that there may be a time and circumstances in which we may need to go further. It is for those reasons that places such as the supreme court are afforded the protection that they have for serious cases. The noble Lord makes a good descriptive point.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We have had a valuable debate—valuable in every possible sense. Not only are noble Lords aware of the serious problems faced by court security, but there is also a feeling that we want to ensure that our courts are safe. Referring to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, we want an assurance that there will be safety in our courts.
	In another sense this has been a valuable discussion. We have explored a number of possibilities and we shall want time to reflect on them. I have one or two other points that I want to raise under clause stand part, but for now I thank noble Lords for participating in this important debate. With my noble friends I shall reflect on the matter, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
	Clause 47 [Powers of search]:
	[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I have two points. The first is that references were made to search mechanics. The Minister sought to reassure the Committee that metal detectors would secure the safety of all who use the buildings. One of my noble friends has pointed out that recent experience shows that such metal detectors do not pick up certain types of explosive and other dangerous materials and that a silicon detector is required. I shall not go into the various sophisticated methods, but it is vitally important that we keep in step with the latest technology .
	As we consider the extensive search powers being authorised under this clause, my second point is who will pay for it? We shall debate that point later when we come to the clauses that seek to give the Lord Chancellor power to ensure that court fees cover a range of activities. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure the Committee that the extra security measures suggested in his comments would not be a burden on the court fees, and that extra resources will be made available to cover the important duty on the Government to ensure that we have safety in our courts. It would be helpful if the Minister could so indicate. We would also like to hear more on the statistics of confiscated items and the extent to which such problems are on the increase, which may give us additional cause for concern.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Subsection (2) is ethnocentric in that it refers only to standard western dress. From time to time the courts are frequented by people in voluminous, ethnic dress. I see the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is in his place and of course I consider kilts to be ethnic dress. Perhaps the list is drawn too narrowly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raises a useful point about technology and the levels of sophistication that some people will use in order to enter a court or court buildings and cause mayhem. We are aware of that. It would be negligent if we were not aware of changes and improvements that we might require occasionally. We have sufficient cover for that. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and his department to ensure that we have an adequate budget to meet new and higher standards of security that might be necessary to protect court hearings. That is a very important duty which is placed upon the Lord Chancellor.
	On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am sure that court officials who are charged with the responsibility of carrying out searches will be mindful that the strict wording of the clause which, as he says, talks about coats, jackets, gloves, hats and so on covers other modes of dress. I am sure that they would investigate sporrans if people regularly turned up at court wearing them. Therefore, that eventuality can be dealt with.

Lord Borrie: I ask my noble friend whether, in the light of this discussion and the extremely important points made, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and then more colourfully by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, perhaps an amendment to delete subsection (2) would be the best way forward.

Lord Morris of Aberavon: I apologise that I was not able to hear the earlier part of the debate. I repeat the point that I made previously in another context regarding over-particularising. Why do we need words such as a hat, a coat and so on? Surely, if there is a general duty to maintain safety in the courts the clause goes about it the wrong way by setting out in such detail these particular searches.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before we get too carried away, we need to remind ourselves of Article 8. I referred to it earlier. It requires that any interference must pursue a legitimate aim. In a democratic society that means that it must fulfil a pressing social need and be proportionate to the aim relied upon. In this instance, the prevention of disorder or crime and the protection of the rights and freedom of others are the legitimate aims that we seek to pursue. It cannot be argued that the need to maintain security at courts and to protect the safety of the judiciary, court staff and other court users is not a pressing social need.
	Proportionality is very important in these circumstances. It should be noted that the extent of any search carried out under Clause 47 is expressly limited by subsection (2), which prevents a court security officer from requesting the removal of any other clothing. However, having said that, we need to take account of the risks at any given time. So we need to be careful.
	I shall deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the breakdown of items which appear to have been confiscated by court security officers. We shall look to see whether we have any further and better data. The point deserves to be answered if possible and if it can be done at reasonable cost.
	Therefore, I think we have the matter right. We must be proportionate in the exercise of the duty. We need to keep fully abreast of any developments, technological or otherwise, that make the task for those carrying out the important work of keeping our courts secure as easy, effective and as simple as we possibly can.

Clause 47 agreed to.
	Clause 48 [Powers to exclude, remove or restrain persons]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 48 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hunt of Wirral: These debates on clause stand part give us an opportunity to reflect on the position from time to time. I did not want to interrupt the Minister again, but I asked him about cost. Perhaps he will respond to my questions on cost in his response to Clause 48 stand part.
	My second point is whether there are any statistics on the number of people who have been excluded, removed or restrained, so that we can see whether this is—as many of us suspect—an increasing problem or one of small proportions. I have much sympathy with those noble Lords who regard this as a serious problem which may well be intensifying.
	Thirdly, I want to make the point that as we proceed with these clauses on court security I detect increasing concern among noble Lords that we may be moving down the wrong route. I quite understand why the Government have introduced these clauses. As the Auld review pointed out, there is a disparity of security provision and powers between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court. Only in the magistrates' courts is there statutory provision for court security. That involves a mix of in-house officers employed by magistrates' courts committees and contract officers who are procured through service contracts with private agencies.
	There are no legislative provisions for security in the remaining courts. Therefore, I start with immediate sympathy for Ministers in seeking to ensure that there is a common theme in the powers and responsibilities for guards employed in all courts. But I hope that Ministers are aware that as we proceed there is increasing concern that this may not be the most appropriate way forward. A number of noble Lords will want to reflect whether there is a better way. Meanwhile, perhaps the Minister can deal with the specific points that I have raised, and those which other noble Lords may wish to raise, on Clause 48 stand part.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention on clause stand part. We are aware of the problem of court security. We have been addressing the issue. That is why we think that the approach we have adopted of putting the matter into statute is the best way to ensure that we have the right court security for the particular court that we are looking at and for the different situations that are likely to occur.
	The noble Lord returned to the question of costs. I make plain that the Lord Chancellor is committed to securing appropriate funding for security improvements without passing the costs on to litigants. The noble Lord invited me to provide him with more data regarding the scope of the problem. I am happy to see what more information we can provide for him. I am happy to write to him with that and to share it with other Members of the Committee and to put a copy of that letter in the Library.
	I turn to the final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on whether we are dealing with this matter in the appropriate way. I think we are. Obviously, we need to describe in more detail how court security will work. The majority of that will probably be through regulation. We also need to be clear about what we are attempting to achieve; that is, an improvement in public safety and the security of our courts. We have demonstrated our commitment towards that today during these important debates. We now need to ensure that we establish the right legislation through the Bill to put that on a sound statutory basis. For those reasons, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel confident to support the clause as it stands.

Clause 48 agreed to.
	Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
	Clause 51 [Regulations about retention of articles]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 82:
	Page 24, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: The amendment inserts "shall" in place of "may" and relates to court security. Clause 51 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations about retention of articles. What regulations and timing are we talking about? Will national standards be applied uniformly? I should have thought that appropriate when dealing with articles which have been surrendered or seized. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to proceed. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Again I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to spell out how we approach the issue. The purpose of Clause 51 is to give the Lord Chancellor a power to make regulations concerning matters connected to the seizure and surrender of articles.
	It was considered unnecessary to deal with these matters under primary legislation as the provisions would be overly detailed and might conceivably change from time to time. However, it was considered desirable that the matters should be dealt with in a uniform way in all courts. Consequently, the Lord Chancellor has been given the regulation-making power to deal with the issues.
	As drafted, the clause gives the Lord Chancellor a power to make regulations. Specifically, those are the provision of written information regarding the powers of retention of court security officers to persons whose items have been surrendered or seized, the keeping of records of surrendered or seized items, the period for which unclaimed items have to be kept and the disposal of such items after the time limit has expired. The amendment would turn that power into a duty.
	The power to make regulations dealing with these issues has been included in the Bill in recognition of the need for a uniform approach across all courts and for people to know what is to happen to their articles if they are seized. One way of ensuring consistency is to make regulations. However, that is not the only way and whether regulations are required to deal with the issues in question is yet to be determined. It is worth emphasising that our expectation is that it will be by regulation in nearly all circumstances. It is, of course, possible that some additional guidance may also be issued.
	We recognise the importance of providing publicly accessible information dealing with the issues highlighted in the clause. We wish to make it clear that regulations, or some other form of instructions, will be available in the public domain and will be produced for wide dissemination. However, we prefer the flexibility that a power confers. It is an argument that we have put forward previously but some flexibility is essential.
	The noble Lord asked how the regime might work. The finer details have yet to be determined. However, information will be provided in the form of a formal receipt presented on surrender or seizure of articles.
	How long an item may be kept has again to be determined. However, the policy intention is that adequate notice will be provided as to when an article will be disposed of. We hope that that offers some assurance. Some items will have to be disposed of but that will be dependent on their characteristic. Potential weapons will be disposed of through the police; and other items which may be a lesser problem or threat may well be distributed to charities for a more important and gainful purpose. Details have yet to be worked out. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's point.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the position. I shall reflect upon it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 51 agreed to.
	Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
	Clause 54 [Functions of inspectors]:
	[Amendment No. 83 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 84:
	Page 25, line 30, after "court" insert ", save the High Court,"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I had no wish to take up the time of the Committee in debating whether Clause 53 should stand part of the Bill. However, we are now moving to an important set of clauses which deals with the new independent inspectorate to be known collectively as Her Majesty's inspectorate of court administration.
	In considering how the new inspection powers will operate, I recognise that at present inspection arrangements are in place only for the administration of magistrates' courts and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). There are no inspection arrangements in relation to any other courts. That is evidenced by Sections 62 and 63 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. We are moving, therefore, into new territory. The amendment seeks on page 25, line 30, after "court" to insert "save the High Court".
	Clause 54(2) establishes that the courts would be the Crown Court, county courts and magistrates' courts. Subsection (3) states:
	"The Lord Chancellor may by order add to the list . . . any court"
	and I seek to insert,
	"save the High Court, having jurisdiction in the United Kingdom",
	or to remove any court from the list. Perhaps I may probe with the Minister how the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intends to proceed with the new independent inspectorate. I confess to a slightly cynical attitude towards inspectorates. If my memory serves me right, they are generally proposed by the Treasury in order to reduce costs and seek the value for money which Her Majesty's Treasury often believes that Ministers do not necessarily deliver without a little additional pressure from the Treasury. If the Minister assures me immediately that the provisions come direct from the heart of the Lord Chancellor's Department, I shall withdraw any cynical comment I may have made.
	If it is a fact that the provision comes from the heart of the Lord Chancellor's Department, I am sure the noble Lord will seek this opportunity to clarify exactly how the powers will operate. An outside observer might feel that the traditional independence of the High Court could be called into question. Some might see it as a step in the direction of a ministry of justice rather than a Lord Chancellor's Department. I know that a debate is raging outside the House about whether there should be a ministry of justice. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify the position on that.
	Are we seeking a genuinely unified system? If so, why has a significant part of the system been left out so far? Why is the power there to add the rest of the court system, should that become necessary? Clarification would be much appreciated. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I have a semi-technical question. If we are to insert, "save the High Court", we will certainly include the Employment Appeal Tribunal which, in deference to sensitivities, calls itself a tribunal but is not at all; it is a court of co-equal status with the High Court.
	However, something else worries me more. If court administration means the Court Service, I do not have much trouble with the provision. But if court administration has a wider meaning than that, and, for instance—to hark back to my days in the Court of Appeal—would involve telling the Master of the Rolls that he must or should reorganise the court's civil appeals office, I begin to get distinctly edgy.
	I spent 10 years in concealed battle with the Lord Chancellor's Department. Fairly junior members of the department wrote to the court's civil appeals office demanding explanations for delays, or whatever. I told the staff of the civil appeals office that they were my staff, even if for pay and rations they were the Lord Chancellor's staff. I said that they were not to answer those letters, they were to give them to me and I would deal with them as I saw fit.
	No doubt things are now much more civilised, but the point is that as long as court administration means the Court Service, that is probably all right—although, in a situation such as mine, in which I was telling members of the Court Service that they were my people, not the Lord Chancellor's, even then there would be trouble. Subject to that, as long as court administration does not mean administration by the judges, I am reasonably content. But the point about the Employment Appeal Tribunal stands, for what it is worth.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the Committee will know, Clause 54 imposes a duty on the inspectors appointed under Clause 53. That duty is to inspect and report to the Lord Chancellor on the system and services that support the Crown Court, county courts and magistrates' courts. That includes not only the administration of the courts but also services such as court security, which we have been discussing. But the clause makes it clear that the inspectors will also continue to report on the performance of the functions of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, now commonly knows as CAFCASS.
	I know that by virtue of the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to exclude the administration of and services provided for the High Court from any possibility of independent inspection. Clause 54 provides that the Lord Chancellor may—I emphasise that this is a "may", not a "shall"—by statutory instrument modify the list of courts subject to inspection. The main courts currently omitted from the list are, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
	Clearly, resources will have to be made available before any further extension to the remit of the inspectorate. But that is not the same as excluding as a matter of principle independent scrutiny of the administrative systems for the High Court and Court of Appeal. Indeed, inspectors may well want to be able to track the passage of cases as they proceed through either the criminal or the civil system. That is why we have constructed the clause as we have. Independent inspection assists performance improvement by drawing attention to discrepancies in how courts are run and identifying and promulgating best practice, thereby helping to raise standards.
	I understand the cynicism with which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, views any such statement, bearing in mind his experience of ministerial office.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. My cynicism has now been proved justified by the fact that the Minister is reading from a Treasury brief.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If only that were so. It may be a poor thing, but it is mine own.
	So the whole import of what we are trying to do by means of the Bill is to improve standards and achieve consistency and continuity of those standards. The question is always: how can we do that? The inspectorate may well have a role to play. The provision would guarantee that if the Lord Chancellor felt it necessary to extend that review and inspection to higher courts, that would be possible, so that we could track things and make the appropriate adjustments as needed.
	Under the amendment, inspectors could examine the administrative system and services for the Court of Appeal if the Lord Chancellor so decides at some time in future. Why exclude the administrative system and services for the High Court? We do not consider that there is any justifiable reason why the way the High Court is administered should be exempted from independent inspection.
	Of course, I understand the sort of tussles that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, may have had in the past. I infer from what he says that the Court Service has been a major improvement on the difficulties that were previously experienced. We certainly hope through the Bill to build on that beneficial experience and try to ensure that we achieve qualitative improvement across the piece. We are trying to ensure that that is transparent and that we have evidence-based policies for change. We will fully consider that matter.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I was certainly not criticising the Court Service as it serves the civil division of the Court of Appeal. It was superb, excellent. Whether the Lord Chancellor felt the same about it, I do not know; he may have had cause to have reservations. The noble Baroness talked about tracking cases. If she really means that, we are right into the judicial field, because tracking cases involves listing, and listing has always been a sacrosanct activity. It lies at the heart of the administration of justice and is judicial.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not disagree with the noble and learned Lord. The listing of cases is judicial. We do not seek to change that. The noble and learned Lord will know that the Court Service acts in conjunction with the judges: the judges direct how such matters are to be dealt with; and the Court Service duly and properly serves the judiciary in a way that helps us to administer justice properly. We do not intend any of that basis, with which the noble and learned Lord is so familiar, to change. We hope that that balance will be preserved.
	However, there are real opportunities for us to ensure that the system is as good as it can be. We are not saying that we will use the power immediately, it merely enables the Lord Chancellor, if he deems it appropriate, so to do. I hope that the Committee will be satisfied with that assurance.
	The Committee will recall that Sir Robin Auld's recommendation 120 was for an independent inspectorate of the agency, which would become responsible for the management of all courts. The Crown Court and the county courts, listed in Clause 54(2), are already under common management of the Court Service. Likewise, the High Court and Court of Appeal are already administered by the Court Service and will in due course be administered by the new agency.

Lord Goodhart: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she will answer a question of mine. We have had a fairly general debate on Part 5 and the creation of the inspectorate, which in principle we strongly support. However, it contains a completely open-ended power to appoint any number of inspectors. No doubt the Treasury will keep that within reasonable limits, or unreasonably tight limits. Can the Minister give some indication of how many inspectors it is intended to appoint to carry out these duties?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not have the figures this evening. It is proposed that there should be a sufficient number of inspectors to carry out the duty. Question: what is sufficient? Those issues will be finely honed when we look at the ambit of the work with which the inspectors will be entrusted and the nature of the reports they will make to the Lord Chancellor.
	Members of the Committee will know how important it is, particularly in relation to the CAFCASS element of this part of the inspectorate, to keep that under review. We will be looking carefully to make appropriate judgments and assessments as to how many will be needed. I hope we shall not be unduly restricted by the Treasury. However, it is a reality that we all know that resources have to be argued for. I know that all Members of the Committee will add their strength to ours to ensure that the Lord Chancellor's Department has sufficient resources to meet those important duties. Anything Members of the Committee can do to help I am sure will be gratefully received.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: The shadow of Her Majesty's Treasury hangs over this Chamber, particularly so during the course of this debate. I was a little saddened when the Minister confessed that she was reading from her own brief. I detected in it some sentences and phrases which I long recognise as what I would term "Treasury-speak".
	The fact that such an independent and impressive Minister should have so quickly succumbed to using the same or similar language is a great disappointment to those of us who admire her progress within the Government. It will certainly not hold her back in anything save our affection and admiration. Indeed, it will enhance her speed through the corridors of power.
	But seriously, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this is an important development. We want to see value for money. It is important to track and trace public money when it is spent on such an important service. But I agree also with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that at the heart of this must lie the traditional independence of the judiciary. I should like to reflect not only on the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, but also on the response by the Minister.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Before the noble Lord sits down—I should not like the affection in which I am clearly held to be diminished—perhaps I may remind the Committee that one of the benefits of tracking, tracing and obtaining evidence is that it helps one to better argue one's case as to why the resources are well used. So evidence cuts both ways.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I greatly admire what the Minister has just said, apart from the split infinitive. In any event, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 54 agreed to.
	Clause 55 [Functions of Chief Inspector]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 85:
	Page 26, line 2, at end insert "which shall highlight best practice and catalogue inefficiencies"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: In essence Amendment No. 85 is a probing amendment. On these Benches we wholeheartedly support the need for an annual report and welcome the provision in the Bill which compels the chief inspector to make such a report to the Lord Chancellor. However, we welcome clarification of what the report will contain. In particular, we should like it to assess issues of best practice and inefficiencies. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: On the face of it Amendment No. 85 is a reasonable amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is seeking to find out what the annual report will contain. Your Lordships' House likes annual reports so it is probably fair that we say what it will contain.
	The chief inspector will want to highlight best practice and look at inefficiencies. We share the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in that regard. However, the amendment is faulty in its drafting.
	One of the primary roles of the inspectorate will be to investigate and highlight inefficiencies and ensure that best practice is disseminated. The Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate has been doing that since its inception. Indeed, it set up a website to disseminate such information. In addition, it is worth referring the noble Lord to the annual report for 2001–02, which highlights the many areas where magistrates' courts committees have instituted best practice as a product of the reporting process.
	Clause 55(1) already requires the chief inspector to report on the inspectorate's discharge of its functions. Those functions are set out in Clause 54(1), primarily to report on the court administration system and court services and on the way in which CAFCASS has performed its functions. I find it hard to imagine how that reporting function could properly be discharged if the chief inspector failed either to highlight best practice or catalogue inefficiencies, where appropriate.
	On the drafting point, Clause 55(2) is permissive. The Lord Chancellor will not be obliged to give such directions but could do so if he thought it necessary. The current provisions of Section 62 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 do not provide for the Lord Chancellor to give directions of this nature and although he has never found it necessary to give formal directions to the current chief inspector, we felt it appropriate to give the Lord Chancellor a power similar to that of the Home Secretary in relation to the probation inspectorate. Therefore we modelled this subsection on Section 7(4) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.
	If the Lord Chancellor is able to agree what is necessary with the chief inspector, as he always has done, then no formal directions will be given and the amended subsection will be completely redundant. The Home Secretary has not issued any formal directions about the contents of the probation inspectorate's annual report. He found no reason to do so because the contents of the report were agreed by mutual consent. The provision to give directions is there if needed.
	I am interested in the points raised and may want to take away this amendment to consider whether the wording needs any adjustment. But it is perhaps worth looking at some of the issues which have been covered by the Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate over the past few years. A thematic review was conducted on case administration in family proceedings courts; on custody arrangements in magistrates' courts; on the justice's chief executive's remuneration; on the recruitment of senior managers in the magistrates' court service; on magistrates' courts and fine enforcement; on information for management on core performance measures and a look at the relationships between magistrates' courts committees and local authorities. Fairly extensive reviews have been undertaken. No doubt, similar sorts of thematic reviews could be conducted across the Court Service more generally. I am even told that there was a review of the use of sign language and foreign language interpreters in magistrates' courts. We would expect that tradition and the excellence that has been brought to bear on the Magistrates' Court Service to be more widely extended and developed as the inspectorate develops its role.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I have a confession to make to the Committee. To some extent, the Minister was probably unaware that he was skating on thin ice, in particular when he said that he would like to take away the amendment to see whether the wording needed any adjustment. It does not. They are the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The directions have already been given. In describing the wording in Part 5, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, said:
	"It will ensure an improved and more consistent level of service to all court users by highlighting best practice and reporting on inefficiencies".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 18.]
	If the Minister values his position, and I am sure that he does—we all do—he might agree that the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor do not need any adjustment. In the mean time, I shall reflect on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 55 agreed to.
	Clause 56 agreed to.
	Clause 57 [Head and Deputy Head of Civil Justice]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 57 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hesitate to raise a matter at this late stage in the Committee. I merely ask whether this provision is necessary. Must we now have two additional bodies—the head and the deputy head of civil justice? We have a Lord Chief Justice, a Master of the Rolls, a Vice-Chancellor and a President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. What will be the role of the two new appointees? Is the Minister satisfied that they are required, and that their role is proper? Will their role be administrative only, or will it be judicial?
	Clause 57(2) states that no person shall be appointed to that office,
	"unless he is—
	(a) the Master of the Rolls,
	(b) the Vice-Chancellor, or
	(c) an ordinary judge of the Court of Appeal".
	Will the appointee be able to hold one of those positions also? If, for example, the current Master of the Rolls is appointed as head of civil justice will a new Master of the Rolls be appointed? Will the provision mean two additional judges in the Court of Appeal, or will the posts be filled by those already there? Those are merely probing questions. My main concern is that the civil justice system has got along well for many years without either of the proposed offices. Have they been fully evaluated? Is the Minister satisfied that they are needed?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that the noble Lord will be comforted to know that the issues have been fully discussed in the judiciary. They stem from the Woolf reforms. I shall outline the ideas central to those reforms. Responsibility for the control of litigation had to pass from litigants and their advisers to the courts. That was to be achieved through a proactive system of case management for which the judiciary would be responsible. There should be a unified set of rules to replace those of the Supreme Court and the county court. There should be reform aimed at better co-ordination of the practices and deployment of the judiciary in the High Court and between the High Court and the county court.
	For the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, to work in a single, co-ordinated, efficient and flexible system of civil justice, case management and judicial deployment, he recommended that there should be a senior judicial figure responsible for the whole corps of judges handling civil work, from district judges to High Court judges. That figure would have the same influence over civil judges as the Lord Chief Justice has over the criminal courts. The appointee must play an important role in encouraging the new team spirit and ensuring that judges at all levels work together to achieve a new culture of civil litigation that better meets the needs of court users. That is the role of the head of civil justice.
	This is the first suitable legislative vehicle since it became clear that the post of the head of civil justice would be required on an ongoing basis. A deputy head of civil justice will be appointed only when necessary. It is considered that there is a need at present. The head of civil justice and the deputy head, where appointed, are to be ex officio members of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. No other specific functions, duties or powers to be attached to the posts are to be provided in the statute.
	I hope that that helps to explain why the new roles are considered helpful. They help the management of, and deployment of, the judiciary across the piece. We have responded to the issue throughout the Bill. We have tried to listen both to those responsible for administering justice in court and to court users in order to fashion provisions in a way that better delivers, or better helps them to deliver, the outcome that we seek. The provision is just another response to the requests that have been made. It is perfectly reasonable and proper for judges to seek to so arrange themselves.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My second question was whether the head and the deputy head of civil justice will also have a judicial role, or whether they will be full-time administrators. Can the head of civil justice also hold the post of Master of the Rolls?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: They will be judicial roles. It is a burden that, in addition to sitting in a judicial capacity, judges have been instrumental and helpful in ensuring that our courts work properly. Noble Lords know the credit that should be given to judges for undertaking those duties. They are usually additional to their duties as full-time judges. We now have designated judges for various circuits. Presiding judges take on additional duties in that capacity. We often hear our judges being inappropriately denigrated. I take the opportunity to say how much we value the incredible amount of work that they do in that regard.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I support the Minister's views. When I was Master of the Rolls, it seemed absurd that, strictly speaking, my remit did not extend beyond the Court of Appeal. To some extent I got over that by having discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. But he took the view that civil courts at High Court level—known as assize courts at the time—were his problem because they were part of the Queen's Bench Division rather than mine. That was illogical. He had plenty to do if he confined his work to the criminal courts at every instance. It would have been much more sensible for me to have responsibility for civil courts at every instance. I did not intend to go pottering in the circuit courts to have a look-see. I merely wanted to seek a strategic direction. It did not happen then, but I am delighted that it is happening now.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Carlisle for raising an important debate on clause stand-part. I agree with the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the judges and to court staff for the tremendous work that they do.
	However, the Minister widened the debate to cover the state of the civil justice system with her comments about the present situation. We shall be turning to financial matters and the question of court fees when we discuss Clause 87. I should like to flag up with the Minister concern that all is not well with civil justice in the United Kingdom at present. That is not just my view. On 1st December 2002, speaking on "Newsnight", the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said that the civil justice system was creaking at the seams and could well fall apart.
	When I read that on the BBC's website, I wanted more detail and asked for the full transcript. The Master of the Rolls said:
	"It is creaking at the seams because of lack of resources".
	He continued:
	"We have to modernise and the court service had prepared a magnificent modernisation programme. All it needed was the funding, and in this spending round we haven't had it. If we don't modernise, the system is going to fall apart".
	He later stated:
	"We have been keeping going as a result of the devotion of the court staff and the judges, in conditions which are hardly viable. We can't go on forever".
	The Minister heard the speech at Second Reading of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, who was previously Master of the Rolls and introduced the civil justice reforms. I am sure that we shall return to this issue, but I did not want this brief debate on the civil justice system to pass without reminding noble Lords of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. He said:
	"Throughout England and Wales, courts are deprived of the technology which has been repeatedly promised and which should be at the heart of the civil justice reforms".
	He also commented that our commercial court at the present time is a disgrace and, of course, should be the envy of the world. He concluded his comments stating:
	"That position is not tolerable".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 28.]
	In the Minister's winding-up speech on that occasion, in referring to the speech made by the Lord Chief Justice, she said:
	"The noble and learned Lord, with his usual precision, has highlighted a number of issues that I am sure will excite our interest for some time".
	She continued:
	"I dare not go further".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 83.]
	Perhaps she might do so on this occasion.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tempts me. But one of the wonderful things that I have learnt from being a Minister, speaking from the Dispatch Box, is to resist such temptation.

Clause 57 agreed to.
	Clause 58 [Ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal]:

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: moved Amendment No. 85A:
	Page 27, line 17, leave out from "styled" to end of line 18 and insert ""Justice of Appeal""

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: We now move on to a rather different subject matter. This amendment, and the provision in the Bill itself which I seek to amend, is concerned with style. But not style in the sense in which we all refer to it in everyday language. In this context, style means the formal label which is attached to an office. Perhaps I may illustrate that best by looking at Section 4(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. This provides that the puisne judges—I trust that Hansard will spell that correctly—of the High Court shall be styled justices of the High Court.
	I doubt whether any judge of the High Court has ever been concerned with the expression, "justices of the High Court", once he had read it in his patent of appointment. In his personal social capacity he—in the case of male judges—would be addressed, being a knight, as Sir John Whatever. In the case of lady judges, they would be addressed as Dame Mary Whatever. In their professional capacity, male judges would be known as Mr Justice X and lady judges known as Mrs Justice X. Neither has the slightest to do with the style as laid down in the statute. It is a matter of supreme unimportance in the High Court as to how judges are "styled".
	As regards the question of the Court of Appeal, the current position is that there are three lady members. I looked at the entries in Who's Who—my copy is a little out of date so I have only two of the lady members' entries to read. One is Dame Brenda Hale; the other is Dame Mary Arden. The entry for Dame Brenda Hale reads:
	"HALE, Rt Hon. Dame Brenda (Marjorie), DBE 1994; PC".
	It goes on to give her professional appellation:
	"Rt Hon. Lady Justice Hale".
	That is exactly parallel in the entry for Dame Mary Arden. And they are in bold. After the entries, in ordinary type, it says, "a Lord Justice of Appeal".
	I should like to make matters clear. Neither the 1981 Act, as originally enacted, or as proposed to be amended, would affect Dame Brenda Hale's social and personal appellation or her professional appellation. It is true that the professional appellation has changed since I was last involved. It was described to me as a practice direction issued by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, when he was the Master of the Rolls. I have no problem with that whatever.
	But Amendment No. 85A casts doubt on the unisex character of a large number of historic titles. I am indebted to the President of the Family Division for the term "unisex"—I had not thought of it. I thought of "titles which have no gender indication of themselves", but unisex puts it more neatly. I cannot possibly provide a complete list but I had a quick look in the Reader's Digest dictionary, which is an odd source but it yielded the following: the Lord Advocate, Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, Lord Chamberlain, Lord Chancellor, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lieutenant, Lord Mayor, Lord of the Manor, Lord Privy Seal, Lord Provost and Lord Steward—there must be others.
	The view which I believe was taken at one time by parliamentary counsel was that no change was necessary because the Interpretation Act took care of it. But I do not think that that was an entirely satisfactory answer.
	I can understand the ladies' feeling that they ought not to be dependent on the Interpretation Act. However, if the provision is altered, one must be careful as to how it is altered. My amendment seeks to substitute for the awful mouthful "Lord Justice of Appeal" or "Lady Justice of Appeal"—it does not add "as the case may be," but it might have done—the simple remedy of striking out the word "Lord". One is then left with "Justice of Appeal", which is an appellation used in some Commonwealth countries.
	It exactly describes what the judges are and it causes no problems or casts doubt on the unisex character of other offices—many of which have been held by women, none of whom have suggested a change. We have even had the Lord President of the Council in this House and I know of no suggestion that that should be changed. I suggest that if the ladies want a change, let them have a change. We are not tampering with what they would be known as socially or professionally. We are examining only the formal label.
	Let us, for goodness sake, have "Justice of Appeal", which avoids all those problems and, so far as I can see, must meet whatever are the legitimate aspirations of these ladies. I have doubts as to whether the Minister will give me much help today, but if not perhaps she will explain to me in words of one syllable the advantage of having Lord Justices of Appeal or Lady Justices of Appeal as compared with Justices of Appeal. I commend the suggestion and hope against hope and without expectation that I shall receive some encouragement. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: I support the amendment. I say no more than that for two reasons. The first is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, has expressed it fully and clearly and no additional explanation is required. The second is that I do not believe that this is an amendment on which we should spend more than 10 minutes.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am afraid that the 10-minute barrier may just be beaten, but we will have to see. I, too, support the noble and learned Lord's amendment. He spoke with great clarity. As he made clear, he is not talking about political correctness and he has put the whole debate in its right framework. We need accurate descriptions which do not offend the office-holder but do convey to the public what someone is doing. He has found the right solution with "Justice of Appeal".
	My question relates to whether there is a problem in any event. The noble and learned Lord referred to the fact that there are three lady members of the Court of Appeal. Have the Government received representations from the judiciary, the Law Society or the Bar that they do not like the current statutory definitions. If so, I should be interested to hear of them. In this House, for example, I have not heard Members who are ladies objecting to being called a Peer. We are well aware that a Peeress is not a Peer but someone who is married to a Peer. There may well therefore be occasions when the feminine use is not an accurate description of the person who holds the post. I shall be interested to see how the Government reached their current state.
	Finally, I noticed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to other office-holders from his Reader's Digest list and to that of Lord Chancellor. I was interested in the fact that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor launched the Bill, the only conversation he had with the press about titles was with regard to that of Lord Chancellor. He put up the bubble for the cartoonists to use by saying that it would not offend him at all if there were soon to be a Lady Chancellor. Let us not pussyfoot around the matter: if by any remote chance the current Lord Chancellor were to retire before the next general election—and I make it clear to my political masters that I am talking only about the time prior to the next general election—the only person who is in the running to be the first lady Lord Chancellor is in the Chamber now, and it certainly is not me.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her extravagant comment. She normally shows excellent judgment and I am sad to see that she has departed from it on this occasion.
	I say straightaway that I see the attraction of the simplicity of the formula proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. However, in response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, it is only right to say that there is a long-standing commitment. It was made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to the President of the Family Division, in particular, in relation to Clause 58. The clause is put forward in order to give voice to that commitment.
	Clause 58 is drafted and is intended explicitly to recognise the female members of the Court of Appeal and acknowledge existing practice in the way in which they are addressed. It enshrines in legislation the position as it has stood since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, issued a practice direction in 1994 when he was Master of the Rolls to afford the current President of the Family Division the courtesy of being referred to as "Lady Justice" Butler-Sloss.
	If the Bill were to apply the construction favoured by the noble and learned Lord, the prefix "Lord" and "Lady" would simply be left to convention. While of course I agree that it is likely that the convention will persist, the Government believe that it is desirable to fulfil a long-standing commitment to the serving female members of the Court of Appeal and their successors to equalise the position. Therefore, it is an honourable support of what we had promised to do.
	I should tell the Committee that there are those female judges who are of the view that to fail to recognise the male and female styles of office would be quite wrong and that to make the office gender-neutral rather than recognise the female style would be offensive. Furthermore, serving male members of the Court of Appeal would be alarmed to lose the appellation "Lord". Those are remarks made outside and I do not necessarily comment one way or the other. However, I do say that this is a long-standing commitment and we believe it only right and proper that we honour it.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Would the Minister care to comment on one practical consequence of the noble and learned Lord's amendment? In the Law Reports, judges at first instance are referred to "J". In the Court of Appeal, they are referred to "LJ". One would therefore have "Hale J" or "Hale LJ". How would Jane Brenda Hale be referred to were she a Court of Appeal judge known as a "Justice of Appeal"? One would need to have more than "J" to distinguish her from when she sat on her own. If a new system had then to be introduced—that of "Hale J of A"—people looking at Law Reports might wonder why for years judges were known as "LJ" but are now known as "J of A". That seems to me to be a mouthful.
	In the jurisdiction where I serve as a High Court judge, we call male judges Lord X and we call lady judges Lady X. That causes us no practical difficulty at all, but perhaps that is one example of how the Scots take a slightly more enlightened approach to matters than do our brothers and sisters south of the Border.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble and learned Lord is certainly right to say that if we leave it as "Lord Justice" and "Lady Justice", then the initials will remain as "LJ" and "LJ". I do not think that it is necessary for me to explore what other appellations might be attached if we moved to using simply "J".

Lord Renton: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may raise a point which has not been mentioned so far. Various High Court judges and women members of the Court of Appeal are awarded the DBE; they become Dames of the British Empire. I hope that my ignorance may be forgiven, but should they be called Dames, Ladies or what?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think we have settled the matter by saying that it is preferable for them to be called "Lady Justice" as opposed to "Dame". If we were in America, I suppose that another construction could be put on it.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I find it surprising that this has been put on the basis of honour. I understand that some years ago the present Lord Chancellor made a commitment to alter the position of lady members of the Court of Appeal so that they could be called "Lady Justice". That has now taken place. However, I cannot believe that his commitment was to a particular form of words, which is what is now being suggested.
	I have not met any male judges who have commented other than to say that this is a matter of indifference. So we are left in the position that two lady members of the Court of Appeal have said, "We need statutory protection". Does that make sense? Has the Lord Chancellor gone further by saying, "Of course you can have statutory protection, but not necessarily in this form". If the proposal is a better form, then so be it.
	In answer to the point made about law reports, I strongly suspect that they would continue to be described as "LLJ", and quite rightly so. However, if one wanted to be purist about the point, it would not be "J of A", but "JA" and "JJA". We have been told that the Scots are ahead of us in this matter—of course they always are; I say that in order to bring the noble and learned Lord on to my side—but in effect we are seeking to do the same thing. It would be "Lord Justice Smith" and "Lady Justice Hale". That is exactly how it is done in Scotland and thus I do not see any problem here.
	I have heard no reasoned support for the change proposed in the Bill as opposed to the change that I have suggested other than that, without the benefit of argument, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor committed himself to a particular form some years ago. I think that it is a terrible comment on the legislature of this country if we are to be stuck with that.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should make it plain that the views expressed are not simply those of the current female judges of the Court of Appeal; they are held by other aspirants to that post.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I was unable to undertake a trawl. It may be that when other noble Lords read this interesting exchange in Hansard, it will be suggested that I return to the matter. I shall reserve that right, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 58 agreed to.
	Clause 59 [Power to alter judicial titles]:

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: moved Amendment No. 85B:
	Page 28, leave out line 2.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am sorry to take the time of the Committee once more and I apologise in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I can deal with this point very briefly.
	Clause 59 is concerned with judicial titles and sets out a list of what are said to be such titles which the Lord Chancellor wants to take the power to alter. Included in that list is the Master of the Rolls. I want to make it clear that I do not seek to make a NIMBY point, but the fact is that the Master of the Rolls is not a judicial title. I was sworn in as Keeper or Master of the Rolls and Records of the Chancery of England. That is not simply a matter of form.
	The office goes back certainly to Norman times. The earliest record of a Lord Chancellor that I could find was a reference to Lord Chancellor Maurice, who became the Bishop of London in 1086. That was the historic function of the Lord Chancellor; that is, to keep the king's conscience. In other words, he was the king's chaplain. I do not doubt that in those days the office holder meddled in politics, as does the present Lord Chancellor.
	In parallel with that office, and I suspect at much the same time although the first record I could find refers to 1268, was the office of the Master of the Rolls, who acted as the king's secretary responsible for keeping copies of all state documents. That job has never changed and it is not simply a formal description; you actually do it. When I was Master of the Rolls I was asked to authorise the transfer of a document which, for various reasons that I need not go into, had been kept in the Lord Chancellor's safe. The document was to be transferred to Her Majesty's family archives at Windsor instead of back to the Public Record Office, where it ought to have been sent. I executed an order and even imposed conditions. I had to be satisfied that Her Majesty wanted the document and that the Chancery of the Rolls of England would be properly annotated to show where the document had been stored.
	In addition I was responsible for approving or disapproving—usually disapproving—arrangements for the custody of manorial records. Anyone who tried to export a manorial record found that I would not let him do so. That was an active role. I was also responsible for registered deed polls involving changes of name. That function produced a crisis. A gentleman wanted to register a change of name, but there were solid objections to allowing him to do so. I stated immediately that someone else would have to deal with the matter because, first, I knew the gentleman, although not well. More seriously, however, my son had been working for him and was in the process of suing him for his fees. However, I discovered that I could not give up the function because there was no deputy. The statute has been changed to provide that the Master of the Rolls can appoint someone to act on his behalf. I have mentioned those points to show that the office is alive and well.
	That covers the day job and I turn now to the moonlighting function of the Master of the Rolls, if I may put it in those terms. Over the years the extra functions of the Master of the Rolls have taken many forms. At one time the Master was also the Speaker in the House of Commons. Indeed, one of my more distinguished predecessors, Sir John Trevor—I hope that I do not defame him—was the Speaker towards the end of the 17th century. Sir John incurred the wrath of the House of Commons by taking a bribe of £1,000 from the Corporation of London to expedite the passage of a corporation Bill. The Commons thought that too much and showed signs of removing him as Speaker.
	Sir John Trevor knew a trick or two; he knew that the House of Commons had no jurisdiction if the Mace was not in its place, so he took it home with him. For four days there was an impasse. Eventually the situation was resolved. He ceased to be Speaker, but he remained Master of the Rolls for another 20 years. So the jobs have varied a great deal.
	The only reason why I and my successors as Master of the Rolls have been able to perform a judicial duty at all is that the Supreme Court Act provides that we are ex officio judges of the Court of Appeal. So it is entirely inappropriate that the title of Master of the Rolls should be included on this list. I venture to suggest that it would be a major legislative solecism if it remained there. I hope that this amendment will have more success than the previous one. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble and learned Lord has given a fascinating exposition of the role of the Master of the Rolls. The post has been around for several centuries and I should have known more about it than I did. It is certainly still alive and kicking.
	I look forward to the Minister explaining what the Government consider to be the legal position and whether they consider that the post is indeed a judicial office. I was intrigued by the parting shot of the noble and learned Lord that the Master of the Rolls sits as an ex officio judge in the Court of Appeal. If the post of Master of the Rolls is to remain listed and the Government consider it to be a judicial office, and may therefore wish to change it in the future, do they have any such intention at this time and, if so, what name are they considering?
	I noticed that in introducing his amendment the noble and learned Lord referred to being sworn in as "Keeper" and Master of the Rolls. Will we have "keepers" in future?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am again grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his erudite exposition and for his reminder of the historical route from which the post of Master of the Rolls derived. Let me say straight away, by way of reassurance, that the title of Master of the Rolls will not be changed. The Lord Chancellor does not at present have any plans to make an order altering either the title of the office or the way in which its distinguished holders may be styled.
	The Government wished to include in the Bill a general power to alter judicial titles if the need arose for modernisation purposes. It may be the case that where the functions of a post, very often not stipulated by statute, change, it may be helpful to court users to change the name to reflect that. The Government took the view that it was not desirable to pick and choose between titles, however unlikely substantive changes to some of them may be—particularly the most senior.
	The clause has been drafted to include all judicial titles in the Supreme and county courts. However, I am aware that the noble and learned Lord has not tabled the amendment, as he put it, because he wants to be "NIMBY" in relation to this matter, but rather because he believes that the title is not judicial. That is where we part company. Far be it from me to question the noble and learned Lord's wisdom on this matter but, although the Government accept that it does not have its origins in a judicial title, over the years the title has become one which most people would accept is appended to a judge.
	There are numerous examples of that. Section 2(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 refers to the Master of the Rolls being one of the ex officio judges of the Court of Appeal; Section 10 of the same Act sets out the procedure and eligibility for appointment to a number of offices, including Master of the Rolls, under the title "Appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court", and so on. So, although it may not have started off with a judicial role, it certainly has one now.
	It is fair to say, therefore, that it is commonly acknowledged that the Master of the Rolls carries out judicial functions and that, to use the term of the noble and learned Lord, being a judge is his day job.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: It is not my day job.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Master of the Rolls has an important judicial role. To return to my earlier point, it would not be right to single out this particular judicial title and exclude it from those listed in Clause 59. Given my reassurance in relation to the continuance of the title of Master of the Rolls, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I shall certainly withdraw the amendment for the time being, and probably for ever. My parting shot to the Minister is that if the Government want to do that, why do they not alter the heading of the clause from "Power to alter judicial titles" to "Power to alter titles"? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I propose that we return to this business not before twenty-five minutes past eight o' clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2003

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December 2002 be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, as is usual with orders of this kind, copies of the Explanatory Memorandum are available in the Printed Paper Office.
	The order before the House executively devolves responsibilities in a number of separate areas, giving additional responsibilities to Scottish Ministers. The Scotland Office has liaised between the relevant officials in the Scottish Executive and officials in the Department for Transport, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office. Policy on these issues has been agreed by all parties.
	Noble Lords may also like to note that, where possible, the Government see advantages in laying omnibus orders under particular sections of the Scotland Act which contain two or more different policy areas. This maximises the efficient use of parliamentary time without, of course, lessening the opportunities to scrutinise the orders, either in your Lordships' House or in another place.
	The draft order was laid before both Houses on 12th December. It was considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 22nd January; it was looked at by the Justice 1 Committee of the Scottish Parliament and agreed to by the Parliament itself on 23rd January. Subject to parliamentary approval, it will be made at the Privy Council in February.
	Before I deal with the substance of the draft order itself, it may be helpful to noble Lords if I say a few words about the power in the Scotland Act under which it is proposed to make this order and comment on some of the other powers in the Act that can be used to vary the devolution settlement.
	The Scotland Act contains a number of ways in which the devolution settlement can be amended, including transferring or giving powers to the Executive to carry out a particular function or duty among other things. The Government see devolution as a process that requires monitoring and variation and always envisaged that the devolution settlement would be varied in ways that improve efficient and responsive government—not least because adjustments are required for legislation passed after the Scotland Act which often need to be implemented by secondary legislation. For instance, the order refers to Acts passed in 1999 and 2000.
	This is not to say that the changes proposed in the draft order are in any way fundamental. But if, for example, it would be more appropriate for a function in or as regards Scotland to be provided by the Executive rather than the UK Government, it seems sensible to provide the Executive with the power to carry it out. Equally, other sections of the Act give order-making powers in relation to cross-border public authorities or for agency arrangements, where the UK Government might provide a function performed in or as regards Scotland on behalf of the Executive or vice versa. Noble Lords will therefore see that Scotland Act orders are not, in this order, bringing fundamental constitutional matters to the attention of Parliament. They are part of the on-going management of the boundaries of the devolution settlement. They follow identification of ways in which services can best be delivered north and south of the Border and, indeed, across it, or to implement new projects or policies as they apply under the devolution settlement.
	Section 63 of the Scotland Act confers a power on Her Majesty to provide by Order in Council for any statutory or non-statutory function of a UK Minister of the Crown—so far as they are exercisable in or as regards Scotland—to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers instead of concurrently with the UK Minister of the Crown. This mechanism is more commonly known as executive devolution.
	Noble Lords will notice that orders made under Section 63 can apply to matters exercisable by the Scottish Ministers either instead of or concurrently with UK Ministers. They can also provide for UK Ministers to exercise a function only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Scottish Ministers—although this power is not being used in the draft order currently before the House.
	Thus, orders under Section 63 include powers enabling the Government to transfer a power to the Scottish Ministers or to give them the power to carry out a function while the UK Secretary of State retains the power to carry it out as well. This flexibility is designed to ensure that the best way of providing a service or maintaining a responsibility can be found, based on the particular circumstances of each proposal.
	The order before the House contains examples of powers both being transferred and running concurrently. It authorises the transfer of functions under certain provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Access to Justice Act 1999, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Transport Act 2000. In respect of the function under the Transport Act 2000, which relates to the payment of a transport grant, the power will be exercisable concurrently by the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State for Transport. So the Secretary of State will continue to be able to exercise that function notwithstanding this order. With regard to the relevant functions under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and the Access to Justice Act 1999, and the Rehabilitation of Offenders functions, the effect of the order will be for the relevant functions to be exercisable, in or as regards Scotland, by the Scottish Ministers instead of by a UK Minister.
	The order transfers to Scottish Ministers the power to commence in Scotland Sections 101 to 103 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. This will have the effect of amending the Taxes Management Act 1970. The amendments concern immunity of and indemnity for general commissioners of income tax and their clerks in relation to legal proceedings arising from the execution of their duties. The amendments have already been implemented in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, where general commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor. As the power to appoint general commissioners in Scotland has already been executively devolved to the Scottish Ministers, it is appropriate for them to implement the changes there, once the necessary powers have been given to Scottish Ministers by this order. The order also transfers to the Scottish Ministers powers under these amendments to make associated regulations.
	What this part of the regulations is not concerned with is, of course, general taxation—which is very much a reserved matter. It relates solely to the operation of the immunity and indemnity for the general commissioners and their clerks provided for by the UK Parliament.
	The order before the House also makes provision in relation to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. This seeks to make life easier for people who have been convicted of a criminal offence and who have not re-offended. If someone does not receive a further conviction by the end of the prescribed rehabilitation period, then the conviction becomes "spent". In general, this means that such people do not have to declare it and they cannot be prejudiced by it.
	Sections 4(4) and 7(4) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 allow subordinate legislation to be made that excludes or modifies the application of, or makes exceptions to, the regime for rehabilitation of offenders under the 1974 Act.
	The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (as amended) is made under Sections 4(4) and 7(4) of the 1974 Act. It sets out categories of employment involving a particular level of trust to which the 1974 Act does not apply and for the purposes of which convictions never become spent.
	As the rehabilitation of offenders generally is devolved, the transfer of functions by the order gives certainty to the exercise of powers by the Scottish Ministers to make or amend the exceptions order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The Scottish Ministers will therefore have the power to amend all aspects of the exceptions order, even if an amendment may have an impact on a reserved area, such as financial services. The Home Office will continue to liaise with the Scottish Executive to ensure consistency, but this order allows Scottish Ministers to amend the exceptions order for Scottish purposes.
	Noble Lords will want to know that any impact upon a reserved area is negligible. In the example I gave of financial services, for instance, the purpose of the exceptions order is to limit the protection given to those convicted of certain offences. Scottish Ministers would therefore be able to amend the exceptions order, for example, in relation to financial services occupations. It does not enable Scottish Ministers to amend legislation on financial services or other reserved areas.
	In addition, Article 3 of the order transfers to the Scottish Ministers the power under Section 272 of the Transport Act 2000 to make certain awards of financial assistance to shipping services. As I have already explained, this power would be exercisable concurrently with UK Ministers. So the power can be exercised by the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State independently of each other.
	Under current legislation the Scottish Executive is able to award freight facilities grants for water-borne services which begin and end in Scotland, but have no power to do so where one end of the service lies elsewhere within the UK or abroad.
	The power contained in the order will principally enable Scottish Ministers to award freight facilities grant awards for short sea shipping movements that do not begin or end in Scotland. The additional function will thus enable the Scottish Executive to develop an integrated and more sustainable transport system for Scotland by, in this instance, encouraging the removal of heavy goods vehicles from Scottish roads. In exceptional circumstances, it is possible to envisage payment of a grant for a movement that both begins and ends outside Scotland, such as movements that take in Scotland as part of a ship's journey, provided it satisfies the Section 63 criteria of being "as regards" Scotland. However, each case would, of course, be judged on its own merits.
	This is a discretionary grant scheme. It is understood from the Executive that any increase in costs associated with the transfer of powers can be catered for within existing resources. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December 2002 be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us that quick canter back through the Scotland Act 1998, which brings back a vision of late nights and long exchanges. He told us about the various Acts that are being effected. With regard to the powers being transferred from the 1970 and 1999 Acts, was the power to appoint general commissioners devolved to the Scottish Executive at the time of the Scotland Act? Is that why the 1999 measures are not implemented in Scotland? Was the lack of those powers in Scotland discussed when they were implemented in England and Northern Ireland? Is it likely to be necessary to devolve any other powers under the Access to Justice Act 1999, when Scotland has not benefited from its provisions?
	Presumably, since the Act of Union, if one is accused of cheating on one's taxes in Scotland, one has been liable to be tried in a Scottish court. However, devolution has introduced a whole new factor. Does the general commissioner of income tax have any immunity from prosecution in Scotland at present? If not, how many prosecutions have there been in the past 25 years?
	I turn to the amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which allows exceptions to the ruling on criminal records. It appears to have a particularly interesting background. The Minister told us that some additional exemptions have already been passed for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Executive issued a consultation paper in December, showing the amendments that they would like in this field. It contains a list of the professions that they would like to be added to those who can insist on seeing the full range of a person's convictions when considering that person for an appointment. The consideration of the matter is already well advanced. It seems that, when the lack of powers was recognised, there was a fairly mad scramble to get the proper powers in place.
	It might seem reassuring to see, in the Explanatory Note, that the instrument has no financial effect on the UK Government departments. However, presumably any increase in the numbers who can require that additional information will require an extra capability by those who need to supply it. That is likely to be an additional expense for the Scottish Executive. Has the Minister's department made any assessment of the cost? If the matter does not come under him, what assessment have the Scottish Executive made?
	I return to the Access to Justice Bill. The drawback is that once the provision is in place, the Scottish Executive, in paying the expenses of the commissioners and their clerks arising out of the execution of their duties or when the Scottish court so order it, will land up having to pay towards the collection of a UK tax. Is it possible for the Scottish Executive to limit that in any way?
	With regard to the amendment to the Transport Act 2000, considerable discussion was had in another place about the debate that took place last May regarding the ferry service between Scotland and Northern Ireland. That debate happened around the time of the introduction of the service from Rosyth to Zeebrugge. No change was made at that time. Have any new factors come to light since then that have precipitated the introduction of the measure?
	Another question arises from the statement that the powers remain with the UK ministry as well as with the Scottish ministry. If either makes a ruling, must payment come from the Government in the UK and/or from the government in Scotland?

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I start by saying that it is good to see the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, back at the Dispatch Box. I am also grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the order.
	This is an eclectic order, as it deals with three totally unconnected issues. But that is the stuff of such constitutional measures, and it satisfies my instinct for the devolution of power and the increasing autonomy of Scotland. However, although the three measures are all devolutionary in trend, one caused me to look at it more than once.
	The transfer of the rehabilitation of offenders suspension measure was not the one that worried me. The former social services worker in me recognises the increasing and widening need for people in positions of trust to be subject to a full disclosure of their previous convictions, within a confidential setting.
	Nor did the power to make maritime and inland waterway freight facilities grants worry me. It is eminently sensible for suitably leveraged capital grants to be made available to create harbour facilities and so divert freight from multiple HGVs on the road network into coastal shipping. In doing so, we will make a further stab at meeting our Kyoto and other environmental targets. Indeed, the power being devolved seems especially generous, allowing the Scottish Executive to build facilities even furth of Scotland as well as within.
	The order seems to complement the other recent order, in which we were asked to devolve power to subsidise shipping services to other places outwith Scotland, such as the Campbeltown to Ballycastle ferry. We must watch with interest to see how the new ferry service from Rosyth to Zeebrugge establishes itself. Similarly, the new freight service from Invergordon to Orkney will remove HGVs from that difficult northern section of the A9 up to Scrabster. Even more esoteric is the possibility of assisting with the service offered in Shetland by the Norrena on the Denmark-Shetland-Faroe Islands service.
	Finally, I come to the power, or the duty, to pick up the tab for the general commissioners. This worries me, when I consider the worst case scenario. It seems to be a case of the devolution of expenditure rather than policy. I acknowledge that Scottish Ministers appoint the general commissioners, but they do not have any control over income tax policy, as other noble Lords have said. It sounds like a case of taxation without representation or, at least, expenditure without a handle on policy.
	When we discussed the issues yesterday in Scotland, people suggested to me that the general commissioners could lose a class action, perhaps from a particular point of principle, with the consequence of a large number of taxpayers having valid claims against them. Does the Minister agree that, in such circumstances, the UK Treasury should make contingency funds available, bearing in mind that Scottish Ministers have no say in taxation policy? I do not see why the Scottish block grant should pick up the tab on that issue.
	The general commissioners are not the only ones who may increase the Executive's expenditure. The marine freight facilities grants will cost money, but that will be controllable expenditure drawn on a deliberate budget. The unpredictable nature of the indemnification of the general commissioners may be a real problem to the Scottish Parliament.
	In conclusion, I like two out of three. If this House had greater powers over secondary legislation, I would be seeking to amend the order by deleting the general commissioners issue. However, I shall stop dreaming and revert to reality and give this order a two-thirds blessing.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we must congratulate my noble friend and the noble Earl on having made so much of what seemed an incomprehensible order when I first looked at it. The Explanatory Note attached to it told me nothing. I could not understand it. However, when I went to the Explanatory Memorandum—both have been supplied—I understood much better. We must thank the Government for producing that, because it explains what is going on.
	I apologise to the Minister. I missed the first minute of his speech. I was at an all-party group upstairs. Everything happened so fast that I could not slide down the banisters quickly enough. The part of his introduction that I heard about the general situation and how the developing intricacies of devolution to Scotland are being met was extremely helpful. The Government are increasingly able to explain what they are trying to do when making such arrangements. It is terribly important that they are well done, because the day may well come when there is a government of a different party at Westminster from that at the Scots Parliament. It is very important that the arrangements are robust.
	We are dealing with grey areas in which people work in contexts that are controlled partly by Westminster and partly by the Scots Parliament. It is very important to get it right. I think the Minister said that liaison between United Kingdom Ministers and Scottish Ministers was important to achieve consistency.
	I have only one question. I think I understand what the Government are saying and it seems perfectly sensible. My noble friend and the noble Earl asked interesting questions and we look forward to the answers. My question is simply about money. This will involve money for the Scots Parliament that is currently the Westminster Parliament's money. There do not seem to be any costs in the rehabilitation of offenders changes, but the arrangements for shipping that begins in Scotland and ends somewhere else—or, mysteriously, can also begin and end somewhere else and still Scotland might want to help it along with money—will cost money, which will have to be taken from the Scottish block. As the noble Earl has said, the indemnifying of general commissioners of income tax and their clerks will undoubtedly cost money.
	As with a lot of these orders, the question is how much will be added to the Scottish block to cover the measures. Will there be a conscious movement of money to fund them? The cost is not very great in the context of the whole Scottish budget, but it is being imposed on the Scots Parliament. Doubtless it wants this to happen and will have agreed to it—and I can see why—but it is being imposed. The UK taxpayer is not going to have to pay for it.
	I think I gave the Minister notice of my question. How precisely will the issue be handled? The situation will be repeated with many of the orders under the Scotland Act. That is an important question and we would like a clear answer.

Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I have two brief observations. First, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the comprehensive manner in which he has explained a complicated order.
	About 25 years ago I used to stand at the Dispatch Box when I was Minister of State at the Scottish Office. In particular, I guided the then Scotland Bill through your Lordships' House. I recall Mr Hayter even then giving me much helpful advice in muttered asides, as I am sure I frequently blundered badly.
	I was a Minister in the Scottish Office for about four years. During that time I do not think that I took through your Lordships' House more than perhaps four Bills in any Session of Parliament. Perhaps there might have been five on one occasion, but it was usually about four. In its brief existence, the devolved Executive has produced and carried about 40 Bills. The question of retained power and devolved authority is, almost by definition, a moveable feast. Those involved in the public awareness of Scottish life would very much welcome the contents of the order.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everybody who has contributed to this brief debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, kindly said how clear my statement was. This was a process. I found it difficult to grasp the issue initially. The more questions I asked, the clearer it became to me—and therefore the clearer to everybody else. That is a good thing, particularly from a government who believe in absolute clarity of communication.
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, made a number of interesting points, which I shall attempt to answer. The underlying point goes back to two lines from the order. These matters are part of the ongoing management of the boundaries of the devolution settlement. With an Act as ambitious as the Scotland Act 1998, there will be matters that have to be dealt with. I gather there have been eight order so far and there will probably be others. I hope that any others will be closely argued to your Lordships' satisfaction. In answer to one of the noble Duke's questions, we anticipate that there may be further orders, but at the moment we have nothing in mind.
	The noble Duke asked what sort of jobs are excepted under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. He sees a moving feast of exceptions. Broadly, the exceptions are those involved with national security, the care of the young and vulnerable—for obvious reasons—the administration of justice, and work in which issues of probity are vital.
	The noble Duke, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness all asked whether there were cost implications for the Scottish Parliament. I shall deal first with the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. He is very concerned that there are costs that will have to be met by the Scottish Executive, particularly if a cost order were made against a general commissioner. I reassure the noble Earl that the legislation the order brings into force in Scotland makes exemptions where bad faith is proved or if a general commissioner is involved in a trial as a result of a matter arising from his duties. The Scottish Executive, which would be liable if a costs order were made, would not, therefore, be punished for the misbehaviour of the general commissioner or his clerk. I should also point out that that applies only to the senior people and not to the more junior commissioners.
	On the question of transport, I, too, read the discussion in the House of Commons Hansard about ferries and ships going here, there and everywhere. I am assured that there is no hidden agenda as regards that part of the order. As I said in the statement, the aim is simply to make roads in Scotland less congested by encouraging freight carriers to ship freight rather than drive on crowded Scottish roads in vast lorries.
	I believe that I answered the question on costs posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. However, she shakes her head. She was kind enough to warn me that she intended to ask that question. Therefore, I obtained information on the cost predictions for each section of the order. The principal cost arises from the freight facilities grant. The Scottish Executive is content with the arrangements. Funding will be met from existing resources within the assigned budget. The Scottish Executive advises that by 2005–06 the SFG budget will be £15.4 million. The Government do not envisage any significant costs arising from other parts of the order other than normal administrative ones. There have been no cost orders against general commissioners in the past so we do not envisage anything of substance in that regard in future.
	I believe that I was asked about costs in the Scotland Office. I am advised that the Scotland Office can take on the additional work with no additional costs being incurred.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I asked whether there would be a deliberate specific transfer via the Treasury of the Scots block from Westminster to the Scots Parliament for matters such as those we are discussing. The Scotland Office considers that it can cover the work but has thought been given to what will happen when the changes are made and the burden is moved? I see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is present. He knows all about the Treasury. Perhaps he can help in this matter.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I answered that question by saying that any cost would be accommodated within existing resources. There will be no new money as a result of the order other than the moneys in relation to transport.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I did not ask whether costs would arise within the department the noble Lord represents. I foresee costs arising when people inquire about previous convictions. I do not know to whom those questions would be addressed. But one can foresee an increasing flood of such questions and that may require extra resources being made available.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am advised that there will be no increase in net resources. It is anticipated that these matters can be dealt with through the existing structures with no additional staff and no additional money being required.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.25 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 8.5 to 8.25 p.m.]

Courts Bill [HL]

House again in Committee on Clause 59.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 86:
	Page 28, line 23, at end insert—
	"and have regard to their recommendations made as a consequence of that consultation"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 142.
	The clause states that the Lord Chancellor can make changes to judicial titles, as we were discussing earlier, only if he has first consulted the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the vice-chancellor.
	The amendment is a simple probing amendment, as it asks what would happen if those people disagreed with the Lord Chancellor. What regard would he then have to their views? The amendment is merely a convenient peg on which to hang the question to the Government.
	Amendment No. 142 is exactly the same kind of probing amendment with regard to Northern Ireland and judicial titles there. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: My understanding is that there is a statutory requirement to consult; the noble Baroness will no doubt be pleased that the provision states that the Lord Chancellor "must" consult. When there is a statutory requirement to consult X and Y, that surely means genuine consultation in which the consultees are given precisely the information that they need in order to say something sensible in response. Their comments and recommendations would be properly considered. That is what consultation means.
	In other words, the Lord Chancellor has regard to what the consultees say. Of course, that does not mean that he has to agree with it, but he must have regard to it. In short, it therefore seems that amendment is quite unnecessary.

Lord Waddington: I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, that there is no point in consulting if, when one has consulted, one does not pay the blindest bit of attention to what comes out of the consultation exercise. I am sure that we would all agree with that. One would like to think that the amendment is entirely unnecessary, as he suggested. One would like to think that the Lord Chancellor, having consulted, would have regard to the recommendations that he received. I am sure that we are all at one in that. Unfortunately, history is not on the side of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He does not have a good track record.
	I am sorry to bore the noble Baroness, but I still think that the matter is very important. There was consultation over the appointment of magistrates in the county palatine of Lancaster. At the beginning of 2000, an elaborate consultation procedure was launched and an enormous number of people of great importance in the county palatine were consulted: the 15 Members of Parliament in Lancashire; the 28 Members of Parliament in Greater Manchester; the 16 Members of Parliament in Merseyside; the leaders of the Lancashire County Council, the Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council; the leader of the Blackpool Borough Council; the leader of goodness knows how many other local authorities in the area; the vice-chancellor of the county palatine; the presiding judges on the northern circuit; the northern circuit judges; the resident judges in each Crown Court centre in the duchy area; honorary recorders; and the attorney-general of the Duchy of Lancaster. One can go on and on until one comes to the really humble people at the bottom of the list: former chancellors of the duchy and life Peers who have associations with the duchy area.
	That is where I come in and that is why I know the whole story. A great consultation exercise was launched and the result was an almost unanimous thumbs down to the proposal that justices of the peace should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor in the duchy area, rather than as had been the case for hundreds of years, by the chancellor of the duchy. The Lord Chancellor has not paid the blindest bit of attention and, regardless, has incorporated in the Bill an amendment that reverses the result of the consultation procedures that were undertaken in such detail in 2000–01. The case is made for Amendment No. 86.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I regret to say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that I disagree that the case is made for Amendment No. 86. We respectfully suggest that this amendment is not necessary. As I said earlier, in relation to consultation the court has made absolutely clear the proper interpretation that that phrase should be given. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. Lord Justice Simon Brown in Devon County Council ex parte Baker (1995) (All England Reports 73, page 91) drawing from earlier authorities, described the requirements of consultation thus:
	"that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any . . . proposals".

Lord Waddington: I do not want to waste time, but one must be clear about the history. This is not a case of the consultation process taking place and being immediately rejected by the Lord Chancellor. A consultation process took place which was accepted by the Government. The Government accepted the conclusions of the consultation process. I have a letter from the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying that as the proposals had no support in the county palatine, they would not proceed with them. That is the history of the matter.
	Perhaps rather rudely, I wrote back to the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mo Mowlam, saying, "My advice to you is perfectly simple: tell the Lord Chancellor to get his tanks off your lawn". Apparently she did so and the net result was that the Government did not proceed with the proposals. Having gone through that elaborate exercise with full consultation resulting in a resounding no and that no being accepted by the Government, I want to know why the Lord Chancellor uses this Bill to reverse the decision so recently made by his own Government.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is excited about the issue in relation to the Duchy of Lancaster. On the previous occasion when we raised this matter in its proper place I promised the noble Lord that I would write to him. I shall do so. We are making inquiries as to the precise nature of the consultation. I remind the noble Lord that the present Bill arose as a result of a desire to unify the system, which is currently separated in the way that we have discussed at length. I hope the Committee will accept that this situation is significantly different from that which prevailed at the time the noble Lord described because of the discussions as to how matters should be arranged between the Duchy and the Lord Chancellor.
	This is not a case of tanks on the lawn. The justices, whether lay or professional, provide a service. It is an honourable service and we seek to ensure that those who are entrusted with judicial office serve the people of this country in the most efficient and effective way and deliver a system of justice which works not for the benefit of those people who operate it, but for those who come before the courts seeking justice.
	I understand the passion with which the noble Lord speaks, but I must say that it has reached a sad pass to talk about justice and its administration in terms of tanks on the lawn. There are no such tanks. There is one tank. That is justice. It is moving in one direction in order to give that justice to the people of this country.
	I return to Clause 59 and to the consultation that the Lord Chancellor will be obliged to undertake with the most senior members of the judiciary as a result of this provision. It is right that we should bear in mind the history. We are in the happy position that Lord Chancellors, no matter of which complexion, have always enjoyed the benefit of good working relations with their senior colleagues. We do not anticipate that there will be any change in that. There is a huge level of respect between the Lord Chancellor and the senior judiciary. There is no reason to suppose that that will not continue.
	As regards consultation, there is a duty to consult, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said—and I know that noble Lords will be delighted by the way in which it is phrased. That consultation must be a real consultation. We hope that the happy position between the noble and learned Lord and his brother judges will continue. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness and noble Lords who have spoken most helpfully.
	The noble Baroness asks what happens if they all fall out. So far the judges have been of good judgment. They have behaved judiciously and have been able to reach honourable compromises in the interests of justice. I hope that anyone seized of the offices that we have before us will continue to use that good judgment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. My noble friend Lord Waddington is right in saying that the quality of consultation is important. The Minister is right to point out that those who will be consulted in this specific circumstance are a limited but powerful group of people, to whom I am sure the Lord Chancellor should have due regard or else he might find their tanks on his lawn. So there could be difficulties. I certainly pay due regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said.
	Perhaps I had a rather mischievous reason for tabling the amendment. It struck me as intriguing—I say no more—that a statutory consultation is so clearly on the face of the Bill with regard to judicial titles and yet as regards the moot matter of the appointment of justices' clerks and their disposition, which we discussed earlier, there is no statutory consultation. I may return to that matter on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 59 agreed to.
	Clause 60 agreed to.
	Schedule 4 agreed to.
	Clause 61 [Judges having powers of District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)]:
	[Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 not moved.]
	Clause 61 agreed to.
	Clauses 62 and 63 agreed to.
	Clause 64 [Criminal Procedure Rules]:
	On Question, Whether Clause 64 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Hunt of Wirral: It is worth reflecting on the fact that the phrase which seems to have excited the Minister involving tanks on lawns was coined by a previous Labour Prime Minister. We should respectfully remind ourselves of that fact, although on this occasion it was utilised in a moderate discussion by my noble friend Lord Waddington. For the assistance of noble Lords, perhaps we may indicate that we shall return to the issue in debate on Clause 98 and the repeals schedule.
	We are now considering rules of court—they will be known as criminal procedure rules—which govern the practice and procedure to be followed in the criminal courts in England and Wales. It is an important provision. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred at Second Reading to the provisions. He made the valid point that the new criminal procedure rule committee would face a considerable challenge. He reminded us that the plethora of criminal justice legislation of recent years has created a criminal justice system,
	"that is highly technical and of labyrinthine complexity".—[Official Report, 9/12/02; col. 26.]
	We would do well to reflect on that when we consider the rules. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline the timing and procedure now to be followed in establishing this important innovation.
	Clause 64(3) confirms that criminal procedure rules may be made,
	"for different cases or different areas".
	I understand from the Explanatory Notes that that distinction is intended to enable the committee to make rules in support of new initiatives. It would be helpful if the Minister could outline the initiatives that Ministers have in mind. I understand that at present they are considering a number of pilot schemes. Again it would assist the Committee if we were to have a resume of the pilot schemes to be established.
	Clauses 64 and 65 are important clauses. We wish the criminal procedure rule committee well. However, it would be of great assistance if we could hear from the Minister as to how the rules are to be formulated and proceeded with.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This clause details membership of the new criminal procedure rule committee, which is to include representatives from across the criminal justice system and those voluntary organisations with a direct interest in the work of the criminal courts.
	The committee will include as members the judiciary, the magistracy, representatives from both branches of the legal profession, the police and representatives of the other criminal justice departments. The wider community will be incorporated with the inclusion on the committee of representatives of voluntary organisations with an interest in the workings of the criminal courts. Therefore, those with a direct interest will be able to participate in the rule-making process. In his amendments to Clause 65, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, proposes amending the membership of the criminal procedure rule committee and removing certain words from the Bill.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: It may be of assistance to the noble Baroness if I say that I was speaking merely to the establishment of criminal procedure rules under the Clause 64 stand part debate and have not yet moved—nor has the Committee—to the amendment to which I think that she began to refer.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, because I thought that he was moving Amendment No. 89.
	As the noble Lord said, the case progression project is developing pilots of procedures that will lead to a quicker and more effective justice. The rules committee will develop rules that can be expected to support further development of the case progression project. I hope that that is helpful in describing to the Committee how we shall proceed.

Clause 64 agreed to.
	Clause 65 [Criminal Procedure Rule Committee]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 89:
	Page 30, line 30, after "Officers," insert—
	"(k) one person who shall represent Victim Support,
	(l) one person who shall represent the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux,"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: We now move to the amendments to Clause 65. Perhaps, in responding to these amendments, the Minister may deal with the other questions that I posed in the Clause 64 stand part debate, to which she has not yet had a chance to respond. Those are the questions of timing; of how new initiatives are to be evolved; of what sort of pilot schemes are contemplated; and, indeed, of what sort of initiatives have given rise to the distinction in Clause 64 referring to different cases or different areas. I raise that point only because the Explanatory Notes make much of it and it would be helpful to hear an explanation.
	As the Minister predicted, in moving Amendment No. 89 I suggest that Clause 65(2)(k) is unsatisfactorily worded because it suggests that on the procedure rule committee should be:
	"two persons who appear to represent voluntary organisations with a direct interest in the work of criminal courts".
	I find that wording unsatisfactory. I therefore move Amendment No. 89 and speak to Amendment No. 90, which, I think, would give a better opportunity to two important voluntary organisations that not only appear to have but actually have a direct interest in the work of criminal courts.
	I speak of course of Victim Support and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest as president of my local citizens advice bureau—although that is an honorary position. But that, and my relationship with Victim Support over the years, has given me the opportunity to recognise that both those bodies perform enormously valuable service. There are many who could testify similarly in both this Chamber and another place.
	Such groups should be appointed to the criminal procedure rule committee. The Bill merely suggests:
	"two persons who appear to represent".
	Perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government chose those words. It may well be that they have in mind appointing people who represent Victim Support and the NACAB, but it would be greatly to the benefit of the Committee if the noble Baroness would explain.
	What I hope will come out of the Minister's explanation is an assurance that the people who will be asked to serve on the committee will actually work for and with voluntary organisations not just "appear" to represent them. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: It might be unwise to be as prescriptive as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggests. I too am well acquainted with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and with Victim Support. They have been in existence for some time.
	However, this Bill is meant to extend over many years. It would be a pity if the wording were so prescriptive that should a body change its name, disappear or merge into something else, that left the Lord Chancellor's Department without a choice, which is available in the present broader wording. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is so strongly cynical that he feels that the Lord Chancellor's Department cannot fairly and objectively operate the system embodied in the clause, I should have thought it best left alone.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for giving way. I should like to point out that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux was set up before I was born. I realise that that is just a flash in the pan compared to the experience of the noble Lord opposite. But the Bill contains mention of organisations from time to time. He will know that I am simply seeking to press the Minister to give an idea of the voluntary organisations the Government have in mind. I hope that the noble Lord does not for one moment think that I was trying to entrench two specific organisations forevermore, although I believe that both organisations will be with us for many years to come.

Lord Goodhart: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie; we do not want to be too prescriptive. But perhaps I too can plug an organisation about which I must declare an interest and say that Justice would be an admirable organisation to be represented on this committee. Indeed, it could be said that we need more than two representatives of voluntary organisations on the committee. I agree that Victim Support and NACAB would have a great deal to contribute; but so too would others such as Justice. There is certainly room for more than two representatives.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Can the Minister say why it is necessary in Clause 66 to give power to the Lord Chancellor to amend what will be Section 65(2)? An amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is to be debated shortly. Why are those powers taken? I shall be grateful for an explanation.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There seems to be general agreement that it is necessary to include appropriate organisations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his kind agreement with the good sense of my noble friend Lord Borrie, which was also reflected by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I shall deal with the amendment therefore in the spirit in which it was moved.
	As drafted, the provision allows for flexibility and inclusiveness in the appointment of representatives from across the voluntary sector. The proposed amendments would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint two additional members—representatives from Victim Support and the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (both excellent organisations of long standing)—to the committee.
	If accepted, the amendment would enlarge what is already substantial membership at the risk of making the committee unwieldy. However, should increased representation of the voluntary sector prove to be desirable, it could be achieved by order, and the Lord Chancellor is to have the power to alter the membership of the committee under Clause 66. Perhaps I can just pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. One of the reasons for that power being included is to enable the Lord Chancellor to change the membership if the need arises. Furthermore, the amendment may cause unnecessary complications. In the event of either specified organisation changing its name, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, the legislation would need to be amended. I accept that that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, had in mind. The aim of Clause 66 is to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility.
	Amendment No. 90 would remove the words "appear to" in respect of members of the committee representing voluntary organisations. That amendment was moved this evening.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I spoke to it.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord. The use of the phrase is a common formulation in this context to avoid arguments as to whether someone is representative of a group. The phraseology allows for the president of an organisation to propose that a named individual should be considered as representative of that organisation. In turn, that would enable the Lord Chancellor to form the view that the person "appeared" representative. It does not allow for the possibility of the Lord Chancellor deciding that someone other than the nominee appeared representative of an organisation. Flexibility is necessary to ensure that a voluntary organisation may be represented by the person best placed to do so and to provide input to the committee, irrespective of whether he is an officer of the organisation. I hope that noble Lords will be content with that explanation.
	I am happy to give Members of the Committee more information on the Question whether Clause 65 should stand part of the Bill. I understand that they wish to have that information on the record so that they can have time to consider it. I apologise if, at the start of the Committee, I did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that it was a clause stand part debate and focused instead on the amendments.
	We believe that the framework for making rules for the criminal courts must be overhauled. That sentiment was expressed by various noble Lords on all sides of the House. At present, rules are considered by different committees and made by different means. There is no one forum for the discussion of general improvements to the running of a trial. The existing committees do not meet. Proposed rules for different criminal courts are considered in isolation. Rules, therefore, tend to be fragmented and deal with specific issues. They lack a common purpose and uniform presentation, which makes it harder for the public to understand them.
	To modernise and streamline the manner in which the new rules are created, the criminal procedure rule committee will take on responsibility for work on criminal business. It will make rules to determine the practices and procedures to be followed in all criminal courts in England and Wales. By placing responsibility with one committee, more consistent rules should be developed. We hope that that will underpin the goal of greater integration in the criminal justice system. The committee would also participate in the longer-term aim of codifying criminal procedures. The committee will be responsible for the development of the rules governing the practice and procedure to be followed in criminal proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the Crown Court and the magistrates' court. I have already dealt with the role of the criminal procedure rule committee and those whom we believe will be represented on it.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, the committee will be established at the earliest opportunity following Royal Assent in 2003. A provisional or shadow body may be created early in the new year. It would be chaired by a senior judge and would carry out preparatory work in anticipation of the creation of the new committee. It would work in conjunction with existing committees prior to the creation of the criminal procedure rule committee.
	The existing Crown Court and magistrates' court rule committees will continue to make rules for criminal practice and procedure for their relevant courts until the new committee is established. It is anticipated that they will continue to deal with the rules of civil proceedings undertaken in the Crown Court and in magistrates' court thereafter.
	I have tried to give a full explanation because I hope that it will give Members of the Committee opposite an overview of where the Government hope to be going. We expect to bring together a working group, drawn from the organisations previously mentioned, to be represented on the committees, to consider the type of work to be undertaken and to liaise with the existing Crown Court rule committee. The work will be in parallel with the development of the new initiative to help the smoother progress of the courts.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: If the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, is concerned with the fragmentation of practice in the criminal procedure, why is it that, under Clause 69, the Lord Chief Justice will give directions as to the practice and procedure of the criminal courts? What is the thinking behind that provision, which does not give, as I see it, the criminal procedure rule committee any role in deciding on practice directions?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There is, and always has been, a role for the learned judge in relation to this matter. We hope that the criminal procedure rule committee will provide an opportunity to obtain an overall view of the criminal procedure rules. We said that all will be represented—the judiciary, magistrates, the Bar, solicitors and all representative parties outlined. It is to be decided which level of judiciary will be sitting on the rule committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the Lord Chief Justice.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am referring to Clause 69, which states that the Lord Chief Justice will decide on future practice directions. There may be some thinking behind this that I do not understand. If there is to be a criminal procedure rule committee, why is it that the committee will not consider practice directions, but that it is simply left to the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, on his own?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Lord Chief Justice will not consider practice directions on his own. The whole purpose of setting up the criminal procedure rule committee is to enable all those operating within the system to be heard, in order that they can make specific recommendations in relation to proposed rules. As now, from time to time there will be occasions when the Lord Chief Justice must give a practice direction which may be within or without these rules. Presently, rules apply and practice directions are given. There is no change in terms of the nature of the rules and the directions. We hope that there will be a greater degree of consistency from the rule committee which will go right across the piece.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for the interesting question and answer session on the respective merits of the civil procedure rule committee recommending changes in rules. As I understand it, the intention is for the Lord Chief Justice to chair the criminal procedure rule committee. However, I see—

Lord Thomas of Gresford: Under Clause 69, the Lord Chief Justice is acting on his own.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford; namely, that in Clause 69(1) there appears to be a conflicting provision. It provides that the Lord Chief Justice,
	"who chairs the committee",
	may, without the committee agreeing such procedure, make directions himself with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor as to the practice and procedure of the criminal courts.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but there is a question as to why there are two separate provisions. There is, on the one hand, the criminal procedure rule committee chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. It has a clear role to play in the evolution of procedure. There is also the provision in Clause 69(1).
	I am sure that there is a simple answer to the question and I have been talking away in case a simple answer is suddenly found. I hope that it will be.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: At present, there is no statutory provision on practice directions for magistrates' courts. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to Clause 69. That clause rectifies the position in respect of criminal proceedings, while Clause 76 makes similar provision for family proceedings. Clause 69 provides that no other person may give directions without the approval of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. In practice, that power might be exercised by another senior member of the judiciary, such as the senior presiding judge.
	The clause also provides that in giving directions which contain guidance as to law or in making judicial decisions, the Lord Chief Justice does not require the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, directions under subsection (4) may cover guidance to the judiciary on such matters as sentencing where it would be inappropriate to require the Lord Chief Justice to obtain the Lord Chancellor's concurrence.
	There are therefore the criminal procedure rules and then the directions which may be given by the Lord Chief Justice. Of course we know that recently such a direction in relation to criminal sentencing procedures caused some—I am tempted to say "notoriety"—speculation and comment.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: There is a difference between giving sentencing guidelines, the recent controversy to which the noble Baroness referred, and practice directions. I should have thought that practice directions were within the compass of the new procedure rule committee.
	I shall read what the noble Baroness has said and if I understand it I shall not return to the matter.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for continuing to press for clarification. I, too, want to reflect on what the Minister has said. She need have no concerns; we shall be dealing fully with the whole question of sentencing guidelines in Amendment No. 122. We shall deal with these important issues at a future time in Committee, but I am grateful to the Minister for having clarified the position so comprehensively. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 91:
	Page 30, line 38, leave out "may" and insert "shall"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: The amendments in this group relate to the criminal procedure rule committee and the family procedure rule committee. Amendment No. 91 would insert in line 31 the word "shall" in place of the word "may". Amendment No. 92 would add after "Committee" in line 40 the words,
	"necessarily incurred in the course of their work as members of the Committee".
	Similar provisions are to be made in Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 on page 34.
	The amendments simply seek to ensure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will take steps to ensure that those involved in the important work of the committees will not be out of pocket as a result. We would welcome the Government's assurance that the members of the committees will receive proper expenses. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of these proposals. Amendments Nos. 91 and 104 would restrict the discretion of the Lord Chancellor in paying expenses for those working on or supporting the work of the committees. It is important that the discretion is retained in order that officials may monitor expenditure and ensure that payments are made in accordance with departmental financial controls. It is entirely reasonable for claims to be subject to scrutiny when payments are to be met from the public purse.
	The provisions of the Bill are identical to the Lord Chancellor's power in relation to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. The members of that committee are reimbursed routinely for travelling and out-of-pocket expenses incurred in the course of their work on the committee and it is intended that that would be the case for members of the criminal and family procedure rule committees. The discretionary power for the Lord Chancellor to reimburse members of the rule committee has worked well in the past and there is no need to alter this.
	I turn now to Amendments Nos. 92 and 105 which seek further to define out-of-pocket expenses. I believe that the amendments would add unnecessary detail. The context is clear from the current provision. The discretion to pay expenses of itself will ensure that such payments will be confined to those necessarily arising from the work of the committee.
	I hope that, with that clarification, the noble Lord will feel content and able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was a little concerned that one of the consequences of what the Minister has stated is that if there is no money in the budget then people will not be paid. However, that may be too trite an observation and so I shall take time to consider the matter further. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 93:
	Page 30, line 43, at end insert—
	"( ) Persons appointed under subsection (2) shall serve as members of the Committee for a maximum of three years."

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Amendments Nos. 93 and 106 suggest that those appointed to the committees should serve for a maximum of three years, but the purpose of the amendments is simply to probe how long the Minister believes that a person would serve. Are there any reasons for removing a person? What are the criteria for selection on to the committees? I believe that we need some clarification on these matters and I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should say straight away that I rather doubt that the insertion of a statutory maximum period of appointment is necessary. It may have a detrimental impact on the progression of the committee's work. A statutory limitation could remove unnecessarily valuable experience from the committee and could cause considerable problems for the progression of its work. I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he does not propose that a three-year period should be maintained, but that he was using it more as a form of stalking-horse to look at the position.
	The appointments process will be developed and carefully monitored to ensure compliance with Nolan procedures and guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The membership arrangements will adhere to agreed standards.
	I do not have a pat answer in regard to the defined period. So far the period has been flexible, responding in relation to the nature of the rules under consideration and the experience of the individuals involved so that the committee has had the balance and the acuity required to deal with the specific areas of law under consideration. I shall certainly seek a clear answer from our officials as regards our provisional thinking, but I am not able to say to noble Lords that we have a fixed period in mind. We intend to take a flexible approach and to meet the needs of the committee.
	I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that response. Obviously if I have further and better information, I shall write to him.

Lord Goodhart: The Minister referred to the Nolan principles. Under the classic Nolan principle there would normally be an appointment for a period of three years, renewable once but not more than once. Is that the kind of appointment period the Government have in mind?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I cannot say whether it would be for a period of three years. I assume that that would be the normal way. Certainly all the appointments made in the past have tended to be for a period of three years. There are occasions when particularly difficult issues come before the rules committee where specific specialisation may be necessary, where alternate opportunities need to be taken and other people co-opted. I cannot give a definitive answer in relation to that.
	We very much value the work of the rules committee. It has given huge attention to some of the detailed practical issues. We have benefited from having on it practitioners, judges and people from representative bodies and we have taken advantage of their experience. To be absolutely frank, those who have a real talent for this kind of work tend to be treasured and invited on to the committee for as long as they can bear it. They do good work.
	I cannot give the Committee a better answer at the moment. If I obtain more information, I shall be happy to write to noble Lords.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I prefer not to be known as a "stalking horse", as the Minister called me—perhaps a "treasure". In view of what she said, I should like to feel that any contribution I make will be treasured. However, I am not too sure that all my contributions today have been so regarded by the noble Baroness.
	I swiftly move to thank her for that clarification and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for probing in the way that I should have done vis-a-vis the Nolan committee. I was involved in the setting up of that body, which has been very successful.
	I agree that the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has been a remarkable success and has made a significant contribution towards improving the civil justice system. We wish the new criminal procedure rule committee well. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 65 agreed to.
	Clause 66 [Power to change certain requirements relating to Committee]:

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 94:
	Page 31, line 7, at end insert—
	"( ) No order may be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."

Lord Goodhart: Clauses 65 and 72 specify the membership of the criminal procedure rules committee and the family procedure rules committee respectively, both of which will be newly created bodies. Clause 78 amends the existing legislation on the membership of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, which is an existing body.
	Clauses 66, 73 and 79 give the Lord Chancellor the power to change the categories of membership by statutory instrument. Although there is a requirement for consultation, in each case the negative resolution procedure is provided for.
	I have to accept that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee stated in its report on the Bill that,
	"Potentially, the order-making power could be used in a way which changed the balance of the Rules Committee but we consider that the negative procedure probably provides a sufficient degree of parliamentary control".
	We disagree with that.
	This is an important power and these are three important committees which, between them, have very extensive powers over virtually the whole of our judicial procedure. We believe that a change in the rules of membership should require the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I rise merely to support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear everything that the noble Lord says in relation to the need for these committees to be stable and not to be changed, and what he says in relation to the affirmative procedure. I know that the noble Lord has read in full the committee's reasoning in reaching the conclusion that the negative resolution procedure is the better. I respectfully endorse all those comments. I say further that, of course, there will be little temptation for any future Lord Chancellor to re-weight the balance of, for instance, the family procedure rule committee in favour of the state over the rights of the individual in family proceedings. I believe that scrutiny by the negative procedure will give us sufficient security.
	The comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in relation to the way in which the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has worked is absolutely right. We have no reason to believe that the two new committees will not be equally effective and successful and receive the necessary plaudits.
	I hope that the noble Lord will be content with that. If he feels the need for further explanation, I can provide that at length. However, it might be better to move on.

Lord Goodhart: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 66 agreed to.
	Clause 67 [Process for making Criminal Procedure Rules]:
	[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 96:
	Page 31, line 16, leave out ", with the concurrence of the Secretary of State,"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: This amendment seeks to leave out the words,
	"with the concurrence of the Secretary of State",
	so that the subsection would read:
	"The Lord Chancellor may . . . allow, disallow or alter rules so made".
	The amendment seeks to probe why the concurrence of the Secretary of State is required.
	Members of the Committee will note that in Clauses 74 and 80, dealing with the process for making family procedure rules and civil procedure rules, the concurrence of the Secretary of State is not required. There, the power to,
	"allow, disallow or alter rules so made",
	is given to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor alone.
	Why will the Secretary of State have to give his consent for the making of criminal procedure rules, and what procedures will the Government be putting in place for the making of the rules? Will the Secretary of State merely be presented with a document by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and told: "Here are the rules I wish to make. Do you concur"? Or will the Secretary of State have an input into the making of the rules themselves and into the noble and learned Lord's decision-making as to whether to allow, disallow or alter the rules? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As the noble Lord may know, the Lord Chancellor is responsible for the administration of the courts, but the Home Secretary bears responsibility for criminal policy.
	The creation of the criminal procedure rule committee is an initiative which has the wholehearted support of the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary. Many court processes originate from legislation taken forward by the Home Secretary, and it is desirable that the Home Secretary should be involved in the final stages of the rule-making process.
	Closer liaison between officials of all three departments will help to ensure that future legislation is developed consistently and economically across the criminal justice system. I can reassure the noble Lord that the rule committee will be making the rules, not the Lord Chancellor. I hope that explains why we believe that it is helpful for the Home Secretary to be involved in this way. It will provide greater consistency and we hope that it will make the path smoother in the future.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 97:
	Page 31, line 17, leave out ", disallow or alter" and insert "or disallow"

Lord Goodhart: In moving Amendment No. 97, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 98 and 99, 109 to 111 and 117 to 119. Although it is late, I shall have to take a little time, because they are important amendments. It is certainly the most important group of amendments we have debated today and among the most important tabled to the Bill.
	We have three rule committees: the criminal procedure, the family procedure and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. They are there to make rules, but the Bill says that the,
	"Lord Chancellor may . . . allow, disallow or alter",
	those rules. I have no objection to the Lord Chancellor allowing them or, for that matter, disallowing them. It is fair that he should have a veto.
	I am worried, however, by the Lord Chancellor's power to alter them, because a power to alter rules is, in effect, a power to make them. It is not quite an unfettered power to make them, because the Lord Chancellor cannot initiate a rule change. When he alters the rules, it must be within the scope of the rules presented to him by the rule committee. However, the power to alter rules is given without the Lord Chancellor having to go back to the rule committee to get its concurrence to the alterations that he proposes to make. It is wholly wrong that the Lord Chancellor has even a somewhat limited power to make rules on his own. It is highly dangerous.
	If the Lord Chancellor is unhappy with some aspect of rules made by the committee, there should be a process of negotiation. Of course, he can indicate to the committee that he would disallow a proposed rule unless changes were made to it. The rule committee can then agree with the Lord Chancellor on the changes that should be made to it. That is the right and proper way of doing it. It would be wrong, however, for the Lord Chancellor, when presented with a set of rules, aspects of which he does not like, to be able to proceed entirely off his own bat and substitute his own rules for those made by the rule committee without seeking the committee's concurrence.
	The measure represents an important innovation. The Lord Chancellor has never had power to alter the rules made by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee or by its predecessor, the Supreme Court Rule Committee. He did at one time have power to alter the rules made by the County Court Rule Committee, but that power was given up some years ago. It is wrong to bring back the Lord Chancellor's powers in relation to county court rules and extend them so far beyond anything that existed before. It is another example of the centralising tendency to which the Government are all too prone. The proposal to allow the Lord Chancellor to alter rules presented to him by the rule committee without the concurrence of the committee in the alterations should be rejected. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: Of course, we strongly support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. On Amendments Nos. 97, 109 and 117, we share his concern about the power given the Lord Chancellor to alter rules. It gives the Lord Chancellor blanket discretion to rewrite the committees' proposals. In such circumstances, why have the committees in the first place?
	Of course, Clause 67 provides that before altering rules so made, the Lord Chancellor must consult the committee, but he does not need to seek its approval. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made that point clearly. I do not know what form the consultation will take, but the power to alter rules, which is not allowed for the civil procedure rules, stands out as being felt necessary uniquely for criminal procedure rules.
	The Home Secretary may well have insisted that there should be the power to alter criminal procedure rules; otherwise I do not understand the force of the provision that alteration has to be permitted for the criminal procedure rules, but for civil procedure rules the power is only to allow or disallow. Why does the Lord Chancellor get the power to alter?

Lord Goodhart: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This applies to the civil procedure rules. Clause 80, which inserts a new section into the 1997 Act, contains the process for making civil procedure rules. The bottom line on page 30 says:
	"The Lord Chancellor may allow, disallow or alter rules so made"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right. However, Section 2(8) of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 does not contain those words. As the noble Lord has pointed out, we suddenly find "alter" inserted in Clause 80. Until now, it has not been thought necessary. I hope the Minister can explain why the power to alter is suddenly emerging for the criminal procedure rules and the civil procedure rules.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand why the issue concerns the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I hope that I shall be able to quieten his troubled spirit and satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
	I assure the Committee that there is nothing sinister hidden in the provision enabling the Lord Chancellor to alter the rules made by the rule committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, the power was in existence for over a century for the county court rules. I do not believe that its restoration would represent a radical change from the current position.
	At present, the Lord Chancellor has the power to allow or disallow a set of rules. That means that he does not have the power to change even a minor issue if he agrees with the majority of the rules. If a Lord Chancellor were minded to disallow rules—I stress that this would be an extremely rare occurrence—he would doubtless discuss the matter with the rule committee. I am sure a compromise would be reached on the rules that ought to be made. The same would happen if the Lord Chancellor disagreed over a particular rule. He would discuss it with the committee and no doubt an agreement would be achieved.
	For all three rule committees, we have provided that the Lord Chancellor is required to consult the committee before he alters the rules. Giving him the power to alter rules after consultation means that instead of having to disallow an entire set of rules, he would only be altering them. We respectfully suggest that that is a less blunt instrument.
	The power to alter rules will ensure that any amendment to rules submitted by the committee can be expeditiously completed. For the criminal procedure rule committee, there is a provision in the Bill that rules may not be altered without the concurrence of the Secretary of State and consultation with the committee. These arrangements would facilitate a situation in which, should there be a difficulty on a particular rule, an agreed amendment could be quickly implemented following consultation with the committee. This would not undermine the fundamental principle that it would be the committee's role to make the rules and not the Lord Chancellor's.
	The power to alter rules will be particularly beneficial when the committees are required to deal with urgent matters. The power to alter rules would also provide for any instance where the rules made by the committees failed to reflect the intention of Parliament when an Act was passed. Although that would be a rare occurrence, it would allow the alteration of individual rules rather than forcing the Lord Chancellor to disallow a set of rules on a particular matter.
	I should also clarify that it is intended that this power would usually be exercised only where a minor alteration to rules is necessary. It is not intended that the power should be used to replace rules made by the committees. It is necessary in order to ensure that in the event of a difficulty being discovered, the rules could be amended rather than having to be returned to the committee to be remade in toto.
	I hope that that explanation satisfies the Committee that the power to alter rules is neither novel nor dangerous and that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment. I emphasise what I said earlier; namely, that in the past it has always been possible for the rule committee to reach an accommodation in relation to these issues. That has worked well. As I say, we expect the power to be exercised rarely.

Lord Goodhart: I suspect that the noble Baroness will not be entirely surprised to hear that I remain entirely unpersuaded by her advocacy on the matter. She did her best. However, given that there is a requirement on the Lord Chancellor to consult the rule committee before he makes alterations and, as I understand it, the alterations may be made some time after the rules have been made, I see no reason why the Lord Chancellor should not be required to go one step further and obtain the concurrence of the rule committee to any alterations which he wishes to make. That seems to be wholly in line with the basis on which the various rule committees operate and I think that it is plainly the right way to handle the matter. I shall withdraw the amendment tonight but it will be high on the list of amendments which I intend to bring back at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 not moved.]

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 100:
	Page 31, line 24, leave out from "Rules" to third "of" in line 25 and insert "shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I rise with renewed vigour to move Amendment No. 100 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 112 and 120. If the Lord Chancellor is to make alterations to the rules, particularly if they have been made contrary to the advice of the committees, should there not be an extra parliamentary check on the making of such rules? As was clear from the debate on a previous amendment, up until now civil procedure rules were subject to negative resolution under the Civil Procedure Act 1997, and we were content with that. But given this power to alter the rules and the power to consult the committees, but not necessarily to obtain their consent to the alterations, it is clearly necessary for there to be a further parliamentary check. This amendment would require that procedure rules should be subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution. Amendments Nos. 112 and 120 are similar in effect. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: If the amendments to which I spoke in the previous group were to be accepted by the Government, I should be content for the present position to continue; namely, that the negative procedure is adequate for rule changes. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, nods his head. If that was not to be the case, it would be essential that there be parliamentary control over alterations in the rules. In those circumstances, I would fully and completely support the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful for the noble Lord's indication that the negative procedure is more appropriate for rules, because in that he implicitly recognises the worth of the committee's detailed scrutiny of the rules and the fact that it is unlikely, with the greatest respect to either House, that there will be those here with greater ability to scrutinise the rules and make sure that they work effectively than in the committee. I understand entirely what has been said on negative resolution.
	I emphasise that we anticipate that the power to alter will be exercised very rarely and sparingly. Therefore, to subject the rules to the affirmative procedure in our normal expectation would be rather burdensome. Members of the Committee will know the difficulty of finding parliamentary time in both Houses, and we think that that would be too heavy a club to deal with the issue in relation to alteration.
	I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said in relation to the amendment and to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We will look again at alterations, although I cannot tell the Committee that I have any real expectation of material change. However, even if the noble Lord succeeds in relation to other amendments, it would be quite wrong to have required an affirmative procedure in relation to this amendment. We would have to think again.

Lord Goodhart: Speaking for myself and not for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would be content if the affirmative procedure was limited to rule changes made by the Lord Chancellor under his power of alteration, and the negative procedure continued to be used where the rules had been made by the rule committee and allowed by the Lord Chancellor.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful for that indication, which I shall take away and consider. If the issue can be resolved amicably during our meeting between Committee and Report, so be it. We will obviously return to the issue on Report. On the basis of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: It has been a most useful discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I have made our position absolutely clear. We are grateful to the Minister for her assurances, and in particular for her promise of further discussion and deliberation. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
	Clause 67 agreed to.
	Clause 68 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:

Lord Hunt of Wirral: moved Amendment No. 101:
	Page 31, line 29, leave out "or desirable"

Lord Hunt of Wirral: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 and 113.
	At the moment, the clause would enable the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, by order to,
	"amend or repeal any enactment, or amend or revoke any provision of subordinate legislation, to the extent that he considers necessary".
	The amendment would remove the words "or desirable", which immediately follow "necessary".
	I am not sure in what circumstances an amendment would be desirable if it were not necessary. With such a huge and wide-ranging Henry VIII power in the clause to make amendments to legislation, it would be helpful if the Minister could say why such sweeping powers were necessary. It would allow the Government to rewrite the statute book because they believe that it is desirable to do so to facilitate the making of procedure rules which in the light of previous debates may have been rewritten by the Lord Chancellor in any event. Amendment No. 102 would require the affirmative resolution procedure to be used.
	I am sure that I have no need to refer the Minister to paragraph 15 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in which it was made clear that in relation to Clause 68 and 75 it did not consider that the Government had made out the case for the negative procedure. I hope that the Minister will take on board the amendments that I have tabled. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart: Amendments Nos. 102 and 113 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has added his name. It will probably be unnecessary to discuss them at length because I understand from the seventh report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which deals with the government response to the earlier report of that committee, that the Government intend to apply the affirmative procedure when the Henry VIII powers under Clauses 68 and 75 are used to amend or to repeal any enactment. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that that remains the intention of the Government.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am happy to confirm that that is the Government's intention. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to that, for which I thank him. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, it is not the intention of the Lord Chancellor to rewrite the rules. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the Lord Chancellor will rewrite the rules; he will not. I reiterate that the clauses that we would intend to change would be the minor rules in relation to the rules committee and not those of major consequence.
	The matter of desirability is relevant, as the work of the committee may uncover anomalies in the criminal law that could be remedied by virtue of the powers set out in Clause 68. There may be some instances where revision of existing legislation may provide benefits to all those involved in the workings of the criminal courts; for example, using modern language to articulate the law, making it easier for the man in the street to understand. In the strictest sense, changes such as those may not be necessary, but they may well be desirable in bringing about improvements in the running of a trial and helping to ensure that the lay man or woman is able to understand what is happening. That is what we are talking about. In view of what I have said about the affirmative resolution procedure, I hope that the noble Lord will be content.

Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am grateful to the Minister for those words, on which I shall reflect. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
	Clause 68 agreed to.
	Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
	Clause 72 [Family Procedure Rule Committee]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 103:
	Page 34, line 4, leave out "one person with" and insert "two persons with current"

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: In moving Amendment No. 103 it may be convenient for the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 114, which is not grouped with it but which I can deal with now. I return to the membership of procedure rule committees, particularly with regard to those persons who have knowledge and experience of the lay advice sector or consumer affairs as regards the civil procedure rule committee and as regards the family procedure rule committee, those persons who have experience in and knowledge of the lay sector, lay advice sector or the system of justice in relation to family proceedings.
	I can be relatively brief because we had some discussion earlier today with regard to the valuable input that there will be from the lay sector. My questions for the Minister relate to the number of these persons it is felt would give sufficient expertise for the successful operation of these committees and whether that experience should be current. If someone is so good at committee work and so helpful to it, it is seductive to allow them to remain—as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said earlier—if one does not have any rules; and, if they are a lay person, they then lose touch with current developments. I have worked most of my life in the voluntary sector and it is very difficult sometimes to let certain volunteers go even though they no longer have direct experience. Therefore, these amendments are probing ones on which to hang those questions.
	With regard to the family procedure rule committee in Clause 72, I notice that subsection (2)(o) states that it will have one lay member, but that under Clause 78(3)(g) the civil procedure rule committee has two such persons. Can the Minister tell us why there is a difference between those two committees? I appreciate that there may be a proper reason; I am simply intrigued as to why there is a difference. I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may take up the last point of the noble Baroness because I do not have specific briefing on it. What springs to my mind is that the breadth and disparity of civil work may be far broader than that in the criminal procedures. Those in the criminal sphere have to deal with the same ambit of cases, whereas those in the civil sphere could deal with, for instance, both family and commercial matters. I say that as a suggestion.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for beginning with that point, but my question relates to the fact that the first subsection to which I referred deals with family procedure, not criminal, and refers to one lay person, whereas the civil procedure provision refers to two. The family procedure is dealt with separately.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Then the argument gets reversed because that is a specialisation, so only one lay person is needed. Civil procedure is broader, so two are needed. I think that is the answer. If I am wrong I shall certainly clarify it for the noble Baroness.
	The Government appreciate the thinking underlying the amendment, that the lay advice sector members of the family procedure rule committee have experience that is current. We understand the necessity for that. Like the noble Lords, the Government do not want members of the rule committee to be out of touch. However, we are doubtful about the wisdom of adding the word "current". The main problem is that that would exclude someone who has very recent experience of the lay advice sector. For example, an applicant may have built up a vast depth of knowledge over 20 years in the field and left a month before applying for the position. So if the amendment were accepted, the applicant would have to be rejected and that knowledge would be lost, but we understand the point the noble Baroness makes about those who are no longer in practice remaining on committees for a number of years where their practice is not fresh. We understand that that is a difficulty.
	There is a difficulty in using the term "current", because what is current today may not be current tomorrow, and then how does one decide what at any given time is current?
	We have considered that the breadth of work in family jurisdiction is much narrower. I confirm that it was thought necessary to have only one lay advice sector member. That is the rationale behind it. I hope I have explained why we think these amendments are not necessary.
	As regards Amendment No. 114, to which the noble Baroness has spoken, the main difficulty is that it could exclude recent experience. I give an example of someone who has worked for a citizens advice bureau for 20 years but again has stopped the month before. That is the same sort of case. We have not found any reference in primary legislation to the use of the word "current". I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister. She has reassured me in some respects but has raised questions that I should have asked the first time round. I do not seek to be difficult: her response was helpful.
	I seemed to be fixated with the dreadful word "current" when I sought to deal with the amendments over the Christmas period. I shall have to get out of the habit of using the word. The noble Baroness properly takes me to task on the use of it in this context. But the Minister brings to her defence the example of someone with 20 years' experience of a citizens advice bureau. That can happen easily. People either stay for a short while, moving on to paid employment, or stay for a lifetime. Such a person could have hands-on experience of specialised work but, having left a month previously, under my rules he or she would be disbarred. I am more persuaded by my argument that they may have to be disbarred. I am uncomfortable with the fact that someone with such experience, but without the knowledge of development, should have input. His experience might become almost frozen in aspic.
	My experience of the judicial system is that one needs that mix of experience and the knowledge of how things are changing to be able to advise properly on rules. We are speaking of changes of rules. It is an important point that I shall consider carefully.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Baroness says. We envisage that those issues will be taken into account when we recruit. The noble Baroness will know that there are those who progress in the citizens advice bureaux from dealing with individual cases to a more managerial role. Twenty years' experience can mean different things. It can mean no growth and stagnation or dramatic growth over a period of time. In recruiting people, we have to ensure that they have the breadth and freshness of experience so that they can bring the acuity we shall need as regards scrutiny of the rules. The noble Baroness is right. It is critical that those entrusted with this role have the ability to direct their minds to what the rules will have to accomplish.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful addition. She speaks of the different experiences of volunteers within an organisation such as the CAB. Many in the metropolitan areas who are paid advisers may have had a long career. The noble Baroness is right. Some people specialise in specific advice. She brings me to the second part of the question that I need to pose as a result of her first answer. She is making it possible for me not to return to these matters on Report, so she is doing a service at least to her own side if not to my own. Perhaps I should not have said that since my Chief Whip is present.
	I come to the number of members of the committees. As the Minister said, because the family procedure rule committee has a narrower remit and is more specialised, perhaps one only needed one member. The problem she then raises in my mind was this. What kind of specialist group within the voluntary sector do the Government think relevant? Can the noble Baroness give the Committee an idea of which bodies might have the relevant experience for membership?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It would be almost invidious for me to pick. For example, if I said, "the NCH", then others might say, "Why them?". We shall seek someone who has the breadth of knowledge that covers the subject matter with which we must deal. Especially in the field of family law, one can think of several who have to deal with all aspects of family law relating to children—public and private sector intermingled. So we must carefully consider during the recruitment process whether we have the balance of experience that we need on the committee, so that when it scrutinises it has all the skills that we want it to have to make the rules robust and sound.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That was even more helpful. The Minister has not only reassured me, as I confirm that she has about the membership and its nature, but put on record a snapshot—that belittles it, but that it is what it is—of the kind of expertise for which the Government are looking. That may well be used to persuade organisations that might otherwise not have done that they should consider giving the Government ideas about who should be members of those committees. I am especially interested in the Minister's comments about breadth of experience across the public/private partnership—that is a valuable approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
	Clause 72 agreed to.
	Clause 73 [Power to change certain requirements relating to Committee]:
	[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
	Clause 73 agreed to.
	Clause 74 [Process for making Family Procedure Rules]:
	[Amendments Nos. 108 to 112 not moved.]
	Clause 74 agreed to.
	Clause 75 [Power to amend legislation in connection with the rules]:
	[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
	Clause 75 agreed to.
	Clauses 76 and 77 agreed to.
	Clause 78 [Civil Procedure Rule Committee]:
	[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
	Clause 78 agreed to.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at three minutes past ten o'clock.